From nobody Fri Sep 1 00:06:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F960133266; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 xF3NlOLrCrSG; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D3B2133015; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DUO45777; Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:06:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.41) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:06:07 +0100 Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:35:57 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" CC: "pce@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" , Mahendra Singh Negi , "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" Thread-Topic: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-group Thread-Index: AdMi74pPfeTwZXoQQaubC5doT8q5mQ== Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:05:56 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36@blreml501-mbx> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36blreml501mbx_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.59A906E0.007C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 89530efc1fcc8a81cb81a101c6198d08 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-group X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:06:13 -0000 --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36blreml501mbx_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chairs, We would like to request IANA early code point allocation for https://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-6. Multiple implementers have reached out to the authors regarding this. So as= per RFC7120, could you initiate the process of obtaining early allocation? Thanks! Dhruv --_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36blreml501mbx_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Chairs,

We would like to request IANA early code point= allocation for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-6.

Multiple implementers have reached out to the = authors regarding this. So as per RFC7120, could you initiate the process o= f obtaining early allocation?

Thanks!

Dhruv

--_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36blreml501mbx_-- From nobody Mon Sep 4 12:02:58 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879D6126D0C; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:02:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150455177749.477.1754057572447886346@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 12:02:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:02:57 -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 WG 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-17.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2017-09-04 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 describes 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 the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17 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 Sep 4 20:12:21 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3140B13218E; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:12:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Rescorla To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org, Cyril Margaria , pce-chairs@ietf.org, cmargaria@juniper.net, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150458113919.28560.11919292423873157447.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 20:12:19 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:12:19 -0000 Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pceps-17: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This document needs a significant editorial pass. I found a number of writing errors, e.g., "Securing via TLS of an existing PCEP session is not permitted," S 1. defining their application in depth. Moreover, [RFC6952] remarks the importance of ensuring PCEP communication privacy, especially when The term here is "confidentiality" S 3.2. The whole description of how you can race StartTLS iff you know you are TLS only is really hard to understand until you get to the diagrams. I would write something like: The PCC initiates the use of TLS by sending a StartTLS message The PCE agrees to the use of TLS by responding with its own StartTLS message. If the PCE is configured to only do TLS, it may send the StartTLS message immediately upon TCP connection establishment; otherwise it MUST wait for the PCC's first message to see whether it is an Open or StartTLS message. S 3.4. + Implementations SHOULD indicate their trusted CAs. For TLS 1.2, this is done using [RFC5246], Section 7.4.4, "certificate_authorities" (server side) and [RFC6066], Section 6 "Trusted CA Indication" (client side). Do common stacks do this? I know NSS does not. To support TLS re-negotiation both peers MUST support the mechanism described in [RFC5746]. Any attempt to initiate a TLS handshake to establish new cryptographic parameters not aligned with [RFC5746] SHALL be considered a TLS negotiation failure. Is there a reason to allow renegotiation at all? S 3.5 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] specify a Speaker Entity Identifier TLV (SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID), as an optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN Object. It contains a unique identifier for the node that does not change during the lifetime of the PCEP speaker. An implementation would thus expose the speaker entity identifier as part of the X509v3 certificate, so that an implementation could use this identifier for the peer identification trust model. This seems underspecified. Is there an OID assigned? S 4.1. DANE [RFC6698] defines a secure method to associate the certificate that is obtained from a TLS server with a domain name using DNS, i.e., using the TLSA DNS resource record (RR) to associate a TLS server certificate or public key with the domain name where the record is found, thus forming a "TLSA certificate association". The DNS information needs to be protected by DNS Security (DNSSEC). A PCC willing to apply DANE to verify server identity MUST conform to the rules defined in section 4 of [RFC6698]. The server's domain name must be authorized separately, as TLSA does not provide any useful authorization guarantees. This is also underspecified. Which DANE types are you suggesting you use? S 7. Some TLS ciphersuites only provide integrity validation of their payload, and provide no encryption. This specification does not forbid the use of such ciphersuites, but administrators must weight carefully the risk of relevant internal data leakage that can occur in such a case, as explicitly stated by [RFC6952]. Why don't you forbid it? From nobody Mon Sep 4 20:17:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C0C13218E; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:16:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150458141707.28732.18441323224205211619@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 20:16:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:16:57 -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 WG 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-18.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2017-09-04 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 describes 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 the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 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 Sep 4 20:29:48 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A541321EB; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:29:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ju0DyJSHhPF9; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2288D13218E; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNX43489; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:29:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.41) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 04:29:41 +0100 Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 08:59:30 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" CC: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" , Eric Rescorla Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt Thread-Index: AQHTJfWLTbhQQnifd06MxLyE8k4t66KloItQ Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:29:29 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBE7D3@blreml501-mbx> References: <150458141707.28732.18441323224205211619@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <150458141707.28732.18441323224205211619@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.79.147] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.59AE1A26.0055, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: a983b50749163193d8509ff43f61ba92 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:29:47 -0000 Hi WG,=20 An update is made after discuss with Eric. Thanks Eric for continuing the d= iscussion on your 'discuss'.=20 The change made is in the case of TLS negotiation failure after both PCEP p= eers have sent the StartTLS message.=20 OLD:=20 After the exchange of StartTLS messages, if the TLS negotiation fails for some reason (e.g. the required mechanisms for certificate revocation checking are not available), both peers SHOULD immediately close the connection. Since the initiator has no way to know if the peer is willing to accept PCEP connection without TLS, based on the local policy, it MAY attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS. The attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS SHOULD be limited to only once. NEW: =20 After the exchange of StartTLS messages, if the TLS negotiation fails for some reason (e.g. the required mechanisms for certificate revocation checking are not available), both peers MUST immediately close the connection. END See diff at - https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pceps-16&u= rl2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 With this update all comments during IESG evaluation are handled.=20 Thanks!=20 Dhruv > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 05 September 2017 08:47 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Secure Transport for PCEP > Authors : Diego R. Lopez > Oscar Gonzalez de Dios > Qin Wu > Dhruv Dhody > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 2017-09-04 >=20 > 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 describes 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 the > flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. >=20 > This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization > phase procedures. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ >=20 > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pceps-18 >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Sep 5 11:01:46 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CA9132DA2; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 fIKedVH9ixgq; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A5F132DFE; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v85I1AH2035380; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:01:38 -0400 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2ct0u1r0u9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:01:38 -0400 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v85I1YcJ011826; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:01:37 -0400 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v85I1Ib8011048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:01:30 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.151]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:00:56 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.141]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:00:56 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: Dhruv Dhody , "pce@ietf.org" CC: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt Thread-Index: AQHTJfV3PaaQLilsX0mL0Sb5IFrG56Kl5YCAgACvPiA= Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <150458141707.28732.18441323224205211619@ietfa.amsl.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBE7D3@blreml501-mbx> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBE7D3@blreml501-mbx> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.202.171] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-09-05_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1709050260 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:01:45 -0000 Thanks Dhruv for holding the pen on this critical document for PCE and work= ing with the IESG on their comments for improving the document! Deborah > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 11:29 PM > To: pce@ietf.org > Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A ; Eric > Rescorla > Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt >=20 > Hi WG, >=20 > An update is made after discuss with Eric. Thanks Eric for continuing the > discussion on your 'discuss'. >=20 > The change made is in the case of TLS negotiation failure after both PCEP= peers > have sent the StartTLS message. >=20 > OLD: > After the exchange of StartTLS messages, if the TLS negotiation fails > for some reason (e.g. the required mechanisms for certificate > revocation checking are not available), both peers SHOULD immediately > close the connection. Since the initiator has no way to know if the > peer is willing to accept PCEP connection without TLS, based on the > local policy, it MAY attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without > TLS. The attempt to re-establish the PCEP session without TLS SHOULD > be limited to only once. > NEW: > After the exchange of StartTLS messages, if the TLS negotiation fails > for some reason (e.g. the required mechanisms for certificate > revocation checking are not available), both peers MUST immediately > close the connection. > END >=20 > See diff at - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dpceps-2D16-26url2- > 3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dpceps-2D18&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd- > o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DqbQiWHiY7dEFAIeOMS3wM7fBMMhozS05d9rnuozvhd > Q&e=3D >=20 > With this update all comments during IESG evaluation are handled. >=20 > Thanks! > Dhruv >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > > drafts@ietf.org > > Sent: 05 September 2017 08:47 > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > Cc: pce@ietf.org > > Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IET= F. > > > > Title : Secure Transport for PCEP > > Authors : Diego R. Lopez > > Oscar Gonzalez de Dios > > Qin Wu > > Dhruv Dhody > > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt > > Pages : 25 > > Date : 2017-09-04 > > > > 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 describes 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 the > > flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. > > > > This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization > > phase procedures. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce- > 2Dpceps_&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd-o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DqyyOR8SD81Hnixb- > MgME8Z7L0NovuKCzGNNt7PWYTZg&e=3D > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dpceps- > 2D18&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd-o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DTdxXKOIpYfAf6SBw- > 7ZTgcGNc7BNXp8mmE2rARfT0B4&e=3D > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dpceps- > 2D18&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd-o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DNH- > P1MmkcSTlbBNCgMvFuEBLtNi3dA4EtBY3Pi7p26Q&e=3D > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__www.ietf.org_rfcdiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dpceps- > 2D18&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd-o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DH9jEXpSdf44FK0d5- > K0aFUdXiOi4CDCENXoZe983y40&e=3D > > > > > > 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: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dftp-3A__ftp.ietf.org_inter= net- > 2Ddrafts_&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd- > o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3DPBKMbM2Wyf9AGDUgZVq8QoajUkbvqJMIxW9VWzMk > dIQ&e=3D > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_pce&d=3DDwIFAg&c=3DLFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3D6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=3DtVxrnFGyNsSVioJp_ul > H_-lsuXd- > o6ODUeSYNzXZM0Q&s=3D6GAViva04B1Y4b4EJrfxhrRKeBUT36eiFTtplE3YHy4&e=3D From nobody Tue Sep 5 11:22:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD60132E01; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:22:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.60.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: The IESG , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org, Cyril Margaria , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, cmargaria@juniper.net, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <150463576569.30040.13198359502783533798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:22:45 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Protocol Action: 'Secure Transport for PCEP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:22:46 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Secure Transport for PCEP' (draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/ Technical Summary 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 the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP. Working Group Summary There has been no particular controversy and the consensus behind the document is good. Document Quality The document is good. It has been reviewed outside of the PCE WG for the TLS mechanisms. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Cyril Margaria Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard From nobody Tue Sep 5 17:31:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DC013271E; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 yBr9csOL5emG; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B257F1321A4; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNZ06398; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 01:31:04 +0100 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.219]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 08:30:54 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" , Dhruv Dhody , "pce@ietf.org" CC: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt Thread-Index: AQHTJfV36fzD40pNF0aZIC3XiFaigKKlHFWAgADzeoCAAPL1QA== Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:30:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <150458141707.28732.18441323224205211619@ietfa.amsl.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBE7D3@blreml501-mbx> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.163] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.59AF41CA.000D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.219, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: a983b50749163193d8509ff43f61ba92 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-18.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:10 -0000 QXBwbGF1c2UsOi0pDQoNCi1RaW4NCi0tLS0t08q8/tStvP4tLS0tLQ0Kt6K8/sjLOiBQY2UgW21h aWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBCUlVOR0FSRCwgREVCT1JBSCBBDQq3osvN yrG85DogMjAxN8TqOdTCNsjVIDI6MDENCsrVvP7IyzogRGhydXYgRGhvZHk7IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9y Zw0Ks63LzTogcGNlLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0K1vfM4jogUmU6IFtQY2VdIEktRCBBY3Rpb246 IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXBjZXBzLTE4LnR4dA0KDQpUaGFua3MgRGhydXYgZm9yIGhvbGRpbmcg dGhlIHBlbiBvbiB0aGlzIGNyaXRpY2FsIGRvY3VtZW50IGZvciBQQ0UgYW5kIHdvcmtpbmcgd2l0 aCB0aGUgSUVTRyBvbiB0aGVpciBjb21tZW50cyBmb3IgaW1wcm92aW5nIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCEN CkRlYm9yYWgNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBEaHJ1diBE aG9keSBbbWFpbHRvOmRocnV2LmRob2R5QGh1YXdlaS5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgU2Vw dGVtYmVyIDA0LCAyMDE3IDExOjI5IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gQ2M6IHBjZS1j aGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IEJSVU5HQVJELCBERUJPUkFIIEEgPGRiMzU0NkBhdHQuY29tPjsgRXJp YyANCj4gUmVzY29ybGEgPGVrckBydGZtLmNvbT4NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IFtQY2VdIEktRCBB Y3Rpb246IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXBjZXBzLTE4LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gSGkgV0csDQo+IA0KPiBB biB1cGRhdGUgaXMgbWFkZSBhZnRlciBkaXNjdXNzIHdpdGggRXJpYy4gVGhhbmtzIEVyaWMgZm9y IGNvbnRpbnVpbmcgDQo+IHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIHlvdXIgJ2Rpc2N1c3MnLg0KPiANCj4g VGhlIGNoYW5nZSBtYWRlIGlzIGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIFRMUyBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiBmYWlsdXJl IGFmdGVyIGJvdGggDQo+IFBDRVAgcGVlcnMgaGF2ZSBzZW50IHRoZSBTdGFydFRMUyBtZXNzYWdl Lg0KPiANCj4gT0xEOg0KPiAgICBBZnRlciB0aGUgZXhjaGFuZ2Ugb2YgU3RhcnRUTFMgbWVzc2Fn ZXMsIGlmIHRoZSBUTFMgbmVnb3RpYXRpb24gZmFpbHMNCj4gICAgZm9yIHNvbWUgcmVhc29uIChl LmcuIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlZCBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGZvciBjZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZQ0KPiAgICByZXZvY2F0 aW9uIGNoZWNraW5nIGFyZSBub3QgYXZhaWxhYmxlKSwgYm90aCBwZWVycyBTSE9VTEQgaW1tZWRp YXRlbHkNCj4gICAgY2xvc2UgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uICBTaW5jZSB0aGUgaW5pdGlhdG9yIGhh cyBubyB3YXkgdG8ga25vdyBpZiB0aGUNCj4gICAgcGVlciBpcyB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIGFjY2VwdCBQ Q0VQIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gd2l0aG91dCBUTFMsIGJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZQ0KPiAgICBsb2NhbCBwb2xp Y3ksIGl0IE1BWSBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIHJlLWVzdGFibGlzaCB0aGUgUENFUCBzZXNzaW9uIHdpdGhv dXQNCj4gICAgVExTLiAgVGhlIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gcmUtZXN0YWJsaXNoIHRoZSBQQ0VQIHNlc3Np b24gd2l0aG91dCBUTFMgU0hPVUxEDQo+ICAgIGJlIGxpbWl0ZWQgdG8gb25seSBvbmNlLg0KPiBO RVc6DQo+ICAgIEFmdGVyIHRoZSBleGNoYW5nZSBvZiBTdGFydFRMUyBtZXNzYWdlcywgaWYgdGhl IFRMUyBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiBmYWlscw0KPiAgICBmb3Igc29tZSByZWFzb24gKGUuZy4gdGhlIHJl cXVpcmVkIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgZm9yIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlDQo+ICAgIHJldm9jYXRpb24gY2hlY2tp bmcgYXJlIG5vdCBhdmFpbGFibGUpLCBib3RoIHBlZXJzIE1VU1QgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkNCj4gICAg Y2xvc2UgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24uDQo+IEVORA0KPiANCj4gU2VlIGRpZmYgYXQgLSBodHRwczov L3VybGRlZmVuc2UucHJvb2Zwb2ludC5jb20vdjIvdXJsP3U9aHR0cHMtDQo+IDNBX193d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmdfcmZjZGlmZi0zRnVybDEtM0RkcmFmdC0yRGlldGYtMkRwY2UtMkRwY2Vwcy0yRDE2LTI2 dXINCj4gbDItDQo+IDNEZHJhZnQtMkRpZXRmLTJEcGNlLTJEcGNlcHMtMkQxOCZkPUR3SUZBZyZj PUxGWVotDQo+IG85X0hVTWVNVFNRaWN2aklnJnI9NlVoR3BXOWx3aTlkTTdqWWx4WEQ4dyZtPXRW eHJuRkd5TnNTVmlvSnBfdWwNCj4gSF8tbHN1WGQtDQo+IG82T0RVZVNZTnpYWk0wUSZzPXFiUWlX SGlZN2RFRkFJZU9NUzN3TTdmQk1NaG96UzA1ZDlybnVvenZoZA0KPiBRJmU9DQo+IA0KPiBXaXRo IHRoaXMgdXBkYXRlIGFsbCBjb21tZW50cyBkdXJpbmcgSUVTRyBldmFsdWF0aW9uIGFyZSBoYW5k bGVkLg0KPiANCj4gVGhhbmtzIQ0KPiBEaHJ1dg0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3Nh Z2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+IEZyb206IFBjZSBbbWFpbHRvOnBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBC ZWhhbGYgT2YgaW50ZXJuZXQtIA0KPiA+IGRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+IFNlbnQ6IDA1IFNl cHRlbWJlciAyMDE3IDA4OjQ3DQo+ID4gVG86IGktZC1hbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+IENj OiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbUGNlXSBJLUQgQWN0aW9uOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm LXBjZS1wY2Vwcy0xOC50eHQNCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gQSBOZXcgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgaXMg YXZhaWxhYmxlIGZyb20gdGhlIG9uLWxpbmUgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIA0KPiA+IGRpcmVjdG9y aWVzLg0KPiA+IFRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0gb2YgdGhlIFBhdGggQ29tcHV0YXRp b24gRWxlbWVudCBXRyBvZiB0aGUgSUVURi4NCj4gPg0KPiA+ICAgICAgICAgVGl0bGUgICAgICAg ICAgIDogU2VjdXJlIFRyYW5zcG9ydCBmb3IgUENFUA0KPiA+ICAgICAgICAgQXV0aG9ycyAgICAg ICAgIDogRGllZ28gUi4gTG9wZXoNCj4gPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIE9zY2Fy IEdvbnphbGV6IGRlIERpb3MNCj4gPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFFpbiBXdQ0K PiA+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRGhydXYgRGhvZHkNCj4gPiAJRmlsZW5hbWUg ICAgICAgIDogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtcGNlcHMtMTgudHh0DQo+ID4gCVBhZ2VzICAgICAgICAg ICA6IDI1DQo+ID4gCURhdGUgICAgICAgICAgICA6IDIwMTctMDktMDQNCj4gPg0KPiA+IEFic3Ry YWN0Og0KPiA+ICAgIFRoZSBQYXRoIENvbXB1dGF0aW9uIEVsZW1lbnQgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBQ cm90b2NvbCAoUENFUCkgZGVmaW5lcw0KPiA+ICAgIHRoZSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGZvciB0aGUgY29t bXVuaWNhdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIGEgUGF0aCBDb21wdXRhdGlvbg0KPiA+ICAgIENsaWVudCAoUEND KSBhbmQgYSBQYXRoIENvbXB1dGF0aW9uIEVsZW1lbnQgKFBDRSksIG9yIGFtb25nIFBDRXMuDQo+ ID4gICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIHVzYWdlIG9mIFRyYW5zcG9ydCBMYXll ciBTZWN1cml0eSAoVExTKQ0KPiA+ICAgIHRvIGVuaGFuY2UgUENFUCBzZWN1cml0eSwgaGVuY2Ug dGhlIFBDRVBTIGFjcm9ueW0gcHJvcG9zZWQgZm9yIGl0Lg0KPiA+ICAgIFRoZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFs IHNlY3VyaXR5IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgYXJlIHByb3ZpZGVkIGJ5IHRoZSB0cmFuc3BvcnQNCj4gPiAg ICBwcm90b2NvbCBzdXBwb3J0aW5nIFBDRVAsIGFuZCB0aGVyZWZvcmUgdGhleSBkbyBub3QgYWZm ZWN0IHRoZQ0KPiA+ICAgIGZsZXhpYmlsaXR5IGFuZCBleHRlbnNpYmlsaXR5IG9mIFBDRVAuDQo+ ID4NCj4gPiAgICBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHVwZGF0ZXMgUkZDIDU0NDAgaW4gcmVnYXJkcyB0byB0 aGUgUENFUCBpbml0aWFsaXphdGlvbg0KPiA+ICAgIHBoYXNlIHByb2NlZHVyZXMuDQo+ID4NCj4g Pg0KPiA+IFRoZSBJRVRGIGRhdGF0cmFja2VyIHN0YXR1cyBwYWdlIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlz Og0KPiA+IGh0dHBzOi8vdXJsZGVmZW5zZS5wcm9vZnBvaW50LmNvbS92Mi91cmw/dT1odHRwcy0N Cj4gM0FfX2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnX2RvY19kcmFmdC0yRGlldGYtMkRwY2UtDQo+IDJE cGNlcHNfJmQ9RHdJRkFnJmM9TEZZWi0NCj4gbzlfSFVNZU1UU1FpY3ZqSWcmcj02VWhHcFc5bHdp OWRNN2pZbHhYRDh3Jm09dFZ4cm5GR3lOc1NWaW9KcF91bA0KPiBIXy1sc3VYZC1vNk9EVWVTWU56 WFpNMFEmcz1xeXlPUjhTRDgxSG5peGItDQo+IE1nTUU4WjdMME5vdnVLQ3pHTk50N1BXWVRaZyZl PQ0KPiA+DQo+ID4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGFsc28gaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbnMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0 Og0KPiA+IGh0dHBzOi8vdXJsZGVmZW5zZS5wcm9vZnBvaW50LmNvbS92Mi91cmw/dT1odHRwcy0N Cj4gM0FfX3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnX2h0bWxfZHJhZnQtMkRpZXRmLTJEcGNlLTJEcGNlcHMtDQo+ IDJEMTgmZD1Ed0lGQWcmYz1MRllaLQ0KPiBvOV9IVU1lTVRTUWljdmpJZyZyPTZVaEdwVzlsd2k5 ZE03allseFhEOHcmbT10VnhybkZHeU5zU1Zpb0pwX3VsDQo+IEhfLWxzdVhkLW82T0RVZVNZTnpY Wk0wUSZzPVRkeFhLT0lwWWZBZjZTQnctDQo+IDdaVGdjR05jN0JOWHA4bW1FMnJBUmZUMEI0JmU9 DQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly91cmxkZWZlbnNlLnByb29mcG9pbnQuY29tL3YyL3VybD91PWh0dHBzLQ0K PiAzQV9fZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmdfZG9jX2h0bWxfZHJhZnQtMkRpZXRmLTJEcGNlLTJE cGNlcHMtDQo+IDJEMTgmZD1Ed0lGQWcmYz1MRllaLQ0KPiBvOV9IVU1lTVRTUWljdmpJZyZyPTZV aEdwVzlsd2k5ZE03allseFhEOHcmbT10VnhybkZHeU5zU1Zpb0pwX3VsDQo+IEhfLWxzdVhkLW82 T0RVZVNZTnpYWk0wUSZzPU5ILQ0KPiBQMU1ta2NTVGxiQk5DZ012RnVFQkx0TmkzZEE0RXRCWTNQ aTdwMjZRJmU9DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBBIGRpZmYgZnJvbSB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgdmVyc2lvbiBpcyBh dmFpbGFibGUgYXQ6DQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly91cmxkZWZlbnNlLnByb29mcG9pbnQuY29tL3YyL3Vy bD91PWh0dHBzLQ0KPiAzQV9fd3d3LmlldGYub3JnX3JmY2RpZmYtM0Z1cmwyLTNEZHJhZnQtMkRp ZXRmLTJEcGNlLTJEcGNlcHMtDQo+IDJEMTgmZD1Ed0lGQWcmYz1MRllaLQ0KPiBvOV9IVU1lTVRT UWljdmpJZyZyPTZVaEdwVzlsd2k5ZE03allseFhEOHcmbT10VnhybkZHeU5zU1Zpb0pwX3VsDQo+ IEhfLWxzdVhkLW82T0RVZVNZTnpYWk0wUSZzPUg5akVYcFNkZjQ0RkswZDUtDQo+IEswYUZVZFhp T2k0Q0RDRU5Yb1plOTgzeTQwJmU9DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IFBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQg bWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIA0KPiA+IHN1Ym1p c3Npb24gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBh dCANCj4gPiB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBhcmUgYWxz byBhdmFpbGFibGUgYnkgYW5vbnltb3VzIEZUUCBhdDoNCj4gPiBodHRwczovL3VybGRlZmVuc2Uu cHJvb2Zwb2ludC5jb20vdjIvdXJsP3U9ZnRwLTNBX19mdHAuaWV0Zi5vcmdfaW50ZQ0KPiA+IHJu ZXQtDQo+IDJEZHJhZnRzXyZkPUR3SUZBZyZjPUxGWVotDQo+IG85X0hVTWVNVFNRaWN2aklnJnI9 NlVoR3BXOWx3aTlkTTdqWWx4WEQ4dyZtPXRWeHJuRkd5TnNTVmlvSnBfdWwNCj4gSF8tbHN1WGQt DQo+IG82T0RVZVNZTnpYWk0wUSZzPVBCS01iTTJXeWY5QUdEVWdaVnE4UW9halVrYnZxSk1JeFc5 Vld6TWsNCj4gZElRJmU9DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiA+IFBjZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gPiBQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4gPiBodHRwczovL3VybGRlZmVuc2UucHJvb2Zwb2ludC5jb20vdjIvdXJsP3U9aHR0cHMtDQo+ IDNBX193d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmdfbWFpbG1hbl9saXN0aW5mb19wY2UmZD1Ed0lGQWcmYz1MRllaLQ0K PiBvOV9IVU1lTVRTUWljdmpJZyZyPTZVaEdwVzlsd2k5ZE03allseFhEOHcmbT10VnhybkZHeU5z U1Zpb0pwX3VsDQo+IEhfLWxzdVhkLQ0KPiBvNk9EVWVTWU56WFpNMFEmcz02R0FWaXZhMDRCMVk0 YjRFSnJmeGhyUktlQlVUMzZlaUZUdHBsRTNZSHk0JmU9DQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpQY2VAaWV0Zi5v cmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlDQo= From nobody Mon Sep 11 05:06:58 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1094713232C; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:06:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.60.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150513161703.9737.5732722438165101864@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 05:06:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:06:57 -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 WG of the IETF. Title : Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for signaling LSP diversity constraint Authors : Stephane Litkowski Siva Sivabalan Colby Barth Dhruv Dhody Filename : draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-02.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2017-09-11 Abstract: This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of computing diverse paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension allows a PCC to advertise to a PCE the belonging of a particular LSP to a disjoint- group, thus the PCE knows that LSPs in the same group must be disjoint from each other. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-02 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 Fri Sep 15 07:15:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEBA1332CA; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.009 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=metaswitch.com 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 GkmxDB_Fjlgp; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0094.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33A3C12421A; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=X90z5aK8eryC4D48q6rZ/+LsjIGrQQwv/4DDF2c/bls=; b=H5WwsXIk4vJQUWPz//V12AcPn+gS8UQzzm41vWw7sitmb1hrIUcect9vsKf0LQQM2T58d8ftDY08UGlH1HXRQvpiq0kCcwNUX/Bg6ri64HH4uhJRw4PDZMdwO3/Ee35Tht4rj5LUtHcoz7ib4h6BGcAaGgP6KtQ4XErKLxsCins= Received: from CY4PR0201MB3603.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (52.132.99.21) by CY4PR0201MB3492.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (52.132.103.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.56.11; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0000 Received: from CY4PR0201MB3603.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce0:2535:42e1:1225]) by CY4PR0201MB3603.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce0:2535:42e1:1225%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0056.010; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0000 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: "pce@ietf.org" CC: "draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org" , "pce-chairs@ietf.org" , Dhruv Dhody , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" , Mahendra Singh Negi , "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" Thread-Topic: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-group Thread-Index: AdMi74pPfeTwZXoQQaubC5doT8q5mQLO8joQ Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36@blreml501-mbx> In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBDD36@blreml501-mbx> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com; x-originating-ip: [86.137.1.212] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR0201MB3492; 6:WaEPdiwfaeoG5TeilkUgao1kyS8nhFlyj7JtatvfiBf6ojaPu0Q0doCb3wvlHvrwTPHYUOIAAH0oUtWHAXUG+V0fMlUAZkRb8QYvalIWRF/qrdT67ybDjCVBWL9kc8xMFOXE3n4hpvHhhwAe+yq9LXPaxkOg0V3SQeXBv0T9UQqweuJ8kPlJRigLJlsUkkmeeL3cL02rbUSJDClsFEiBjABCdSthbaWM/NenSrDWQOzzioWu+0xFhV6DfXC7WGOjGccnyZJSt0wv8GJhRXufXVTuC+nYh1JzqUv6mQCLE3KWGScqYzUYD5EWs2mhF+d4dlF/lQ+fvMrff1G7LxN4ow==; 5:G72HqEN7ZGTL7S9ksTuK5NraCn2RTZ83TRUk+x4a30AdHoM+o+6i6jIuPcDH9trmONh65HqsVaqZ7gGjGPlwW1kCjO18VfaH7hM7RfxeIsmSSVz490Nf8ygaPN2t5PV/nXY4vlgTgeXTTu1Fx9x5kA==; 24:gabGUdtuBnIqqnJt4/hvxU54h6rozYcr1FuDrG2x9VO++hf7pW7gzMSxfLY+tlsSkivmpP5h4UCwKBDMWZ+avJdUjtFZthcKkrooeMGg9PY=; 7:o7mYpsR9/pL1R/QMizZ+rhPWAZ2cKKgAWRfM9vjquKQkA5tYmJSP300MwOvsA+3lCe3fBIhV46Sd0VjjJikLVox5txGmZgrgSuLH5qk0SgSRxIPTrYilE3cjUHeZqz9XfPDArsfwBm3iypvjuuE5boxv5+EAaLSSrz5r8+9P7lue9/rqyskDl4E85LHR0HEITNukwxSl2CAazfZFFHEqRAFiyapI7LYgAtnYPoiB/zI= x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a000a0fe-e8d6-41f9-824f-08d4fc44364f x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603199)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:CY4PR0201MB3492; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR0201MB3492: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(50582790962513)(97927398514766)(95692535739014)(21748063052155); x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:CY4PR0201MB3492; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:CY4PR0201MB3492; x-forefront-prvs: 0431F981D8 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(376002)(199003)(189002)(74316002)(7696004)(3280700002)(230783001)(316002)(3660700001)(50986999)(76176999)(54356999)(478600001)(5660300001)(8676002)(54906002)(2351001)(55016002)(6306002)(106356001)(81166006)(53936002)(6246003)(1730700003)(7736002)(81156014)(54896002)(8936002)(72206003)(236005)(5640700003)(966005)(5630700001)(9686003)(33656002)(110136004)(5250100002)(101416001)(3846002)(14454004)(6506006)(6116002)(102836003)(790700001)(105586002)(99286003)(97736004)(2501003)(4326008)(6436002)(25786009)(606006)(189998001)(2900100001)(229853002)(53546010)(68736007)(86362001)(2906002)(6916009)(2950100002)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR0201MB3492; H:CY4PR0201MB3603.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: metaswitch.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY4PR0201MB36037AA682B99E54FC90CE1F846C0CY4PR0201MB3603_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Sep 2017 14:15:26.4301 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR0201MB3492 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-group X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:15:35 -0000 --_000_CY4PR0201MB36037AA682B99E54FC90CE1F846C0CY4PR0201MB3603_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear PCE WG We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-association-g= roup for an early code point allocation. The process for early code point allocation is described in RFC 7120. The = draft is required to meet several criteria, including: b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described in an Internet-Draft. c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or believes= that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send= an email to the PCE mailing list explaining the reasons. If the chairs he= ar no objections by next Friday, 22 September, we will kick off the early a= llocation request. Best regards Jon & Julien From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] Sent: 01 September 2017 08:06 To: pce-chairs@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org; BRUNGARD, DEBO= RAH A ; Mahendra Singh Negi ; Rak= esh Gandhi (rgandhi) Subject: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-group Hi Chairs, We would like to request IANA early code point allocation for https://tools= .ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-6. Multiple implementers have reached out to the authors regarding this. So as= per RFC7120, could you initiate the process of obtaining early allocation? Thanks! Dhruv --_000_CY4PR0201MB36037AA682B99E54FC90CE1F846C0CY4PR0201MB3603_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear PCE WG

We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-associat= ion-group for an early code point allocation.

The process for early code point allocation is described in RFC 7120.&= nbsp; The draft is required to meet several criteria, including:=

b. The format, semantics, processing, a= nd other rules related to

handling the protocol= entities defined by the code points

(henceforth called &q= uot;specifications") must be adequately described

in an Internet-Draft.=

c. The specifications of these code poi= nts must be stable; i.e., if

there is a change, im= plementations based on the earlier and later

specifications must b= e seamlessly interoperable.

If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or bel= ieves that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please= send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining the reasons. If the chairs hear no objections by next Fri= day, 22 September, we will kick off the early allocation request.

Best regards

Jon & Julien

From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com]
Sent: 01 September 2017 08:06
To: pce-chairs@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org; BRUNGAR= D, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>; Mahendra Singh Negi <mahendrasingh@= huawei.com>; Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Subject: Early code point allocation for draft-ietf-pce-association-= group

Hi Chairs,

We would like to request IANA e= arly code point allocation for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-6.

Multiple implementers have reac= hed out to the authors regarding this. So as per RFC7120, could you initiat= e the process of obtaining early allocation?

Thanks!

Dhruv

--_000_CY4PR0201MB36037AA682B99E54FC90CE1F846C0CY4PR0201MB3603_-- From nobody Thu Sep 21 22:19:56 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4FF133072; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Nh0YY3eNEiRU; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D32133032; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8612CB80DFC; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:24 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pce@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170922051924.8612CB80DFC@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] RFC 8231 on Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:19:47 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8231 Title: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Author: E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: September 2017 Mailbox: edward.crabbe@oracle.com, inaminei@google.com, jmedved@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech Pages: 57 Characters: 128096 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-21.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8231 The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. 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 Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk 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 Thu Sep 21 22:20:02 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9918134217; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 wlAkAOD8Mol4; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D01A133061; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2B909B80E01; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:28 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pce@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170922051928.2B909B80E01@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] RFC 8232 on Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:19:51 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8232 Title: Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE Author: E. Crabbe, I. Minei, J. Medved, R. Varga, X. Zhang, D. Dhody Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: September 2017 Mailbox: edward.crabbe@gmail.com, inaminei@google.com, jmedved@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech, zhang.xian@huawei.com, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Pages: 26 Characters: 56167 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8232 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 State Synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, the PCE and Path Computation Clients (PCCs), and cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for State Synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This document presents motivations for optimizations to the base State Synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. 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 Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk 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 Thu Sep 21 22:20:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121F91333B3; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:20:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 qHC5HdvDN3qI; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 033FC134224; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8CB86B80E07; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:31 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pce@ietf.org Message-Id: <20170922051931.8CB86B80E07@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] RFC 8233 on Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:20:02 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8233 Title: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Author: D. Dhody, Q. Wu, V. Manral, Z. Ali, K. Kumaki Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: September 2017 Mailbox: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, bill.wu@huawei.com, vishwas@nanosec.io, zali@cisco.com, ke-kumaki@kddi.com Pages: 31 Characters: 62742 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-13.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8233 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8233 In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another important factor to consider during path computation. IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation. 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 Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk 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 Sep 26 02:56:00 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFDD12008A; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:55:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Rescorla To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick , pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.62.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150641975777.13813.16067253373396647744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 02:55:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:55:58 -0000 Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Revising position after offline discussion From nobody Tue Sep 26 03:09:12 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D423213293A; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:09:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.62.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <150642054481.13833.6952150463268507149@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:09:04 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:09:05 -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 WG of the IETF. Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Authors : Quintin Zhao Dhruv Dhody Ramanjaneya Reddy Palleti Daniel King Filename : draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2017-09-26 Abstract: Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs. This document obsoletes RFC 6006. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-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 Tue Sep 26 03:18:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88132120720 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:18:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 9pE881oUKjXm for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE8C13292F for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DWG22362; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:18:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:18:43 +0100 Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.183]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:48:31 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHTNq+ZM+/mRjzy2EuQRgM+wG7g6qLG8TGA Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:18:31 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D595874@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> References: <150642054481.13833.6952150463268507149@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <150642054481.13833.6952150463268507149@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.59CA2985.001C, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.9.183, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 70fedb295c45a049f09a7869da8920d3 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:18:49 -0000 Hi WG,=20 This update clears the DISCUSS, comments and directorate reviews received d= uring the IESG evaluation stage.=20 The summary of changes are -=20 (1) List of all changes between RFC6006 and the bis document in the Appendi= x for easy reference.=20 (2) Security Consideration is updated from the original text in RFC6006, to= clearly state the use of TCP-AO and TLS in PCEP (and not use TCP-MD5). (3) Description related to PCEP Yang for P2MP (4) IANA consideration was updated, related to the Object-Type=3D0 (Errata = 4956) See diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 Draft is ready to be sent to the RFC editor!=20 Regards, Dhruv > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 26 September 2017 15:39 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element > Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering > Label Switched Paths > Authors : Quintin Zhao > Dhruv Dhody > Ramanjaneya Reddy Palleti > Daniel King > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt > Pages : 43 > Date : 2017-09-26 >=20 > Abstract: > Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized > MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may > be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first > need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been > identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the > paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. >=20 > This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol > (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths > for P2MP TE LSPs. >=20 > This document obsoletes RFC 6006. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ >=20 > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04 >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Tue Sep 26 19:50:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0701344E0; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 qCYWdeXcPfrM; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1441321DE; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DWH52557; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:50:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from BLREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.171) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:50:22 +0100 Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.183]) by blreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:20:12 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" CC: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Updated I-D: draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-04 Thread-Index: AdM3OXHuwLawnj3gS5OVAerOyBNp3Q== Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D5963D8@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.77.50] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.59CB11F0.004B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.9.183, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 67c3a303e23fb362aa4cc744e0616a99 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Updated I-D: draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-04 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:50:28 -0000 Hi WG,=20 We have made an update to the Protection Association Type I-D [1]. The chan= ges are -=20 - Section on session termination handling=20 - Better Alignment to the generic association WG draft - Clarification added for 'LSPs in this association group, must belong to t= he same TE tunnel' See Diff [2].=20 =3D=3D=3D Hi Chairs, This was the first association-type draft that was submitted and first pres= ented during IETF 90 along with the base association draft [3]. There are k= nown implementation of this association-type as well. Now that we have stab= ilized the base association draft, as well as adopted some association-type= s - diversity and policy. I feel we should also adopt this draft. =20 Would you consider calling WG adoption call on this draft?=20 Thanks!=20 Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-pro= tection-04 [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=3Ddraft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-= path-protection-03&url2=3Ddraft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protectio= n-04 [3] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-pce-8.pdf