From nobody Thu May 9 02:42:25 2019 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 CCEA712007C for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:42:22 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4Rq8GGq0YSRx for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8742120072 for ; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id a17so1099867iot.8 for ; Thu, 09 May 2019 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WCbqmzU5c6OrECst4nzPuUfZT+UcefDf4ae7OEs7/RY=; b=Y5hMTVgGvwbMGNpio3rdqsnvP6nz7EpQoMU8MK0HKnEZr1UkROfV8hAr7Cl74ENUqC 4kfiPEPHi4kuAg7ANo3EMnv0YaQE0Km28HNkuSE0vgJsUd2by/vH0S6Kl48FrqcXrOg5 2ZjANFsBenKiOhpnEwe5GnttJ3xQJ6YkEVSzzGqmrcgRBEcrlwlhEROSJb285AOVDgWE YoddtZI19Lk7k3UEGlwSxnrvkd0qS4Km0NO9kCHEAAKPGPy7zY/nbN83ulZYrK+bRVxx rht89di3ligw6OWcfXfmXxArkR9DPQpqqCtx07pFWZjIgwbtyJUgZj/HHbD+oilwS5Gs T8Tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=WCbqmzU5c6OrECst4nzPuUfZT+UcefDf4ae7OEs7/RY=; b=nf85vxs3xORA9ri425gXZb4pi6ivNgJUQwGHFYWnrQFEAXHRMHstk5GHsYE+vyeJsV 76TkzHMZSku95WFvD3naezZsS3LmiC4qtgLRa2adtHcfSdv3yrtlSiD50gFTzYEAF/PN Yw2/zGoKBQEka4cSjIDdrM6lYPqYxWd91yfX6cawXcKDM7ePgi0GPRACVv/X8Ux27tfb enbbgp6aQlQWovsx1LBERm9WQ+fNdY7FTNrqknrA7y3Z8twac8NM0K7sJnfUhMS+2Q4z igTBNLoArbwtkdex+SnC2W6l/JvgE3g8Qgm5OqyAsSkEizAkgw7DPtXA9apmc+6NuqW6 g/Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqyrhH7AM1g3GRq+zt+0mIgG6UPxNFBmRgKjMvEWNUJ5d9LMho 3DzMfJDMnDop9wD7g+mSJH1u0KgQuYPBGD0JcMSl4tIz X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9Lh7DVsN65lIDKW3Z/qW1GYii05FJjo6y8MpLe/l8g5HJcwa8lR3/uFljYfokdq492sqMD4Ktt0OI1CxJpiw= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:770a:: with SMTP id n10mr1768770iom.255.1557394939334; Thu, 09 May 2019 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 15:11:42 +0530 Message-ID: To: pce@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Proposed Implementation Policy for PCE WG X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 09:42:23 -0000 Hi WG, The poll is closed. We have an implementation policy set for the PCE WG - "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document basis." It is expected that all WG I-Ds requesting WG LC from now on (May 2019), must follow the above implementation policy. Reach out to the chairs in case an exception needs to be made for your document. Refer the wiki - https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/ for the policy as well as WG queues/status. Thanks! Dhruv, Julien & Adrian On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:01 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi WG, > > In discussion with our ADs and with other WG chairs in the Routing > Area, the PCE chairs have decided that it would be good for the > working group to have a stated policy about what implementation is > needed, desired, or required before a draft can advance for > publication as an RFC. The full range of options is available from "no > implementation required" up to "multiple independent and > inter-operable implementations required". The purposes are to help > ensure quality and implementable RFCs, to make sure that our work is > truly relevant and needed, and to understand the relative priorities > of our work. > > The chairs briefly mentioned this at the IETF 104 PCE WG meeting, and > we promised to start a discussion on what 'Implementation Policy' to > set for the PCE WG. > > This is a subject for the WG to decide through the usual rough > consensus, but the chairs would like to start the discussion with a > proposal as follows - > > "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' > Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned > implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document > basis." > > Please raise any concern with the proposed implementation policy by > 24th April 2019. > > Thanks! > Adrian, Dhruv & Julien From nobody Mon May 13 10:17:07 2019 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 0BD10120021; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:16:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Alissa Cooper Message-ID: <155776781803.23717.17373768123245251965.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:16:58 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 17:16:58 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: Discuss 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Gen-ART reviewer noted that there seems to be one case of how OPEN is handled that is under-specified. In Section 3.2.1 and Section 4.1, if the originator sends an OPEN with P set to 0 and the response has P set to 1, what is the originator expected to do? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please respond to the remaining Gen-ART review comments. From nobody Mon May 13 10:23:28 2019 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 BB90C120219; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=mrKL5Jn4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Ykt9X8Bt 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 b8UFJJKZAljR; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2AFF1201F2; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9ED52F; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=Q PqgriwL19f/1SWh3LI5sELY3zi4arUmk90QwBVF1qg=; b=mrKL5Jn40xfWMM5Vq rdxc6USpb3+pMOZjtgrEN3fFBLyso2sXQqrjy6OiCtbcGGIGgDt7HmRUOO3B6uPN 7Njrq4iCCsVTXucDpkTh1nEbUDbBYMsSqMBUM0v6G4PBfAMF3UhG9P0ecZmVvdYW OOp3ewUhC4fQ4mQo8QSTkUMQ6c9o3omOVziM/Memkhb88oNsWBonohCgZ7y7QP3n z6seSnKuEIKmYCu2owkiyGWdXLJ9Oqg886B9/sc8VccFXv/Rm5GV6sYbHES3N7U+ tJmkY+qHAMG6vcQtjBCWpKMmsl0Qrwnp1iK6gsHBOF6i80O/crP2NCC83HKNS7RT Mgc7w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=QPqgriwL19f/1SWh3LI5sELY3zi4arUmk90QwBVF1 qg=; b=Ykt9X8BtNWOz7Tn2RfBERq3fmG4+tJteQQc6Z8O0zojCR092LgvGsIZdH S4SlOhrTkTORWfOzTImYbu+rApaTVZOn9j4F3EnEWiGxhYy/GviCNvuqtSMw5gOz yT4x5wBKKIrnXVAOSajoqXApIcYUFgz6hON7zjOCie5xeYhte7pRGnn/0BrzCiZR fKL+pf27D4bVpnKrVZUft0Pqv4e9JCCnROZKLTfuDsa9Zug8pGveM7bilwqeDk8J AjbPI4SgBNGmlTakCq9SusCVtbY3t3QuJV71rP6XO170E00WiPnQR9I5FKkg7gFF P/9OaxpzwEaugjTB0wgt5oznWIwSg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrleeggdduuddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqh hmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfe drfeekrdduudejrdekjeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.87]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5B0EE10378; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:05 -0400 Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Roni Even X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 17:23:15 -0000 Roni, thanks for your review. I raised your point about the missing OPEN = (error) case in my DISCUSS ballot. One comment below. > On Apr 14, 2019, at 6:42 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker = wrote: >=20 > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Almost Ready >=20 > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. >=20 > For more information, please see the FAQ at >=20 > . >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2019-04-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >=20 > Summary: > The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC. >=20 > Major issues: >=20 > Minor issues: > 1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use = H-PCEP on the > internet? This text is the same as what appears in RFC 7399 and I think it = captures the intent clearly enough (although happy to see the authors = answer your question). Thanks, Alissa >=20 > 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE = sends an > open with P flag =3D0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =3D1 = and if yes > what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text = about this > case. >=20 > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child" > 2. Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using > different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art From nobody Mon May 13 12:13:39 2019 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 03DC212023C for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:37 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vUxi4MKcxzNx for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CCD412012D for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id y3so451491wmm.2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=dTJ9JX3+eqWTCIUYc56nweG9bl6VUaKtbQsfSy7cRQ8=; b=Qki0s+kitz/p5LGwcMQ19tp4hMXA96MsY3wwPfATb06cHJRyvDYwCTbsG+GBUNGL/v eAN/gdNgm2+2aYguSRUHxQfd5vFuvFy/kVfGeGcf+U5ktHG6RGprHEU4Ulzgmqio0iEe P/zLQ0Efqj4Ig17EG0YDJxyxghWDcGW/ZvnAMqhGJJJUorzHakt46zXewd5NMW0MX/6F 3vyd5S6078/nubgqpU2pjq2OR7fXYgp783YSDfEuh3jl14jzWtiTdSov2J48rEZq7MRF vKZtawNTp7aQrj+YP+fwbS6dt8bSb2DjRE1sYRefhB9iYry8oQ4wBz705R5BOaCu4B/j nz7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=dTJ9JX3+eqWTCIUYc56nweG9bl6VUaKtbQsfSy7cRQ8=; b=rM7HRgcXfOunFC/QwWlksgActfwYwgTp1Ki0RVQX0qF7CpYxcMFn2q9WAJQWGIZjRM 2XBpXo112I1u25+y9cwtQznNQZOlT32S42c/INqEYGB02NigS8dU2wIm9mfkRlC3T5Ie d/qAUhxYuIZn0b2uaI0qeEJEw8lM1GaNsEjLR6R9sRfpUd3hUTYqAboJvfpOfjV/HHo1 vyag8+QUR7BL5FUa9PBZAIjZEyWrxWcAWoMD9gkOSnQybuGm6LksS/ZT2bXiR85epBge r3fJgyF/sMY71w2NFCOVRYQh2NlQVWOvydic4BvnXVl6ONFG5hTPZYyjcxN1x5j1/NHS om5A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUaxb3fE3E8hMLupUvargpQJm+RM1aru0MN98km3C0qm+G7khvj cPbGWIIMqECs3g50l03iEIRu9g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8HYgnma0actcMp1cVJDe+6fSpc2aOXLgEnqU9D/PkMqJikAIyDIwqUzQ1e2bXSLZZXeebZw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b4d4:: with SMTP id d203mr16112570wmf.34.1557774812672; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CIPHER ([88.202.231.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm203153wmc.26.2019.05.13.12.13.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 May 2019 12:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Daniel King X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" From: To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , "'Roni Even'" Cc: , , , References: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 20:13:30 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01d509bf$f3edf740$dbc9e5c0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIWujtCCN4XrPFhwIxqOyq7y/YkkgKBxXpepdH5WuA= Content-Language: en-gb Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 19:13:37 -0000 Hi Roni and Alissa, Thanks both for the review. We have addressed the comments from you both in the latest version (11) but have not posted as it was so close to the IESG telechat. A few comments (DK>>) below on the specific comments: Re: Minor issues: > 1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use H-PCEP on the > internet? DK>> The draft (section 1.1) now includes the following text. >> The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is applicable to environments with small groups of domains where visibility from the ingress LSRs is limited. As highlighted in [RFC7399] applying the hierarchical PCE model to very large groups of domains, such as the Internet, is not considered feasible or desirable. << > 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE sends an > open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =1 and if yes > what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text about this > case. DK>> According to RFC 5440, the Open message is not a request response exchange. Both entities send an Open message, and indeed they may even overlap. In our H-PCE extensions the P flag indicates that the sender wants the receiver to act as its parent. In the example we give, it should be fine for one party to not set the P flag in the first Open message seen on the wire, and for the second part to set the P flag in the second Open message seen on the wire. Therefore, I don't think this needs to be address as an implementor should be familiar with the Open message behavior. > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child" DK>> Fixed, thanks! > 2. Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using > different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording. DK>> In the new version of our I-D (v11) we have three paragraphs for this section, the first includes text from RFC6805 and uses quotes the reference text, but we also include some additional discussion (in two further paragraphs) text not used in 6805 to further define domain diversity. DK>> Again, thank you for the reviews. Its very much appreciated. We have a new version ready which also addresses the above, and comments from Kyle (secdir) and Mike (rtgdir). BR, Dan and the other authors. -----Original Message----- From: Pce On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 13 May 2019 18:23 To: Roni Even Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 Roni, thanks for your review. I raised your point about the missing OPEN (error) case in my DISCUSS ballot. One comment below. > On Apr 14, 2019, at 6:42 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2019-04-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > 1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use H-PCEP on the > internet? This text is the same as what appears in RFC 7399 and I think it captures the intent clearly enough (although happy to see the authors answer your question). Thanks, Alissa > > 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE sends an > open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =1 and if yes > what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text about this > case. > > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child" > 2. Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using > different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Mon May 13 12:22:49 2019 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 C47991200C5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:41 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 04M4ladTQRgn for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 139ED12021C for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id v11so16561256wru.5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=AN56KssOHU9dO2JLrRY/lBaRCmDeUrk+NIplJQv/4YA=; b=mG3vu42YnQgudlf/ZVrajWSIxxkqUXbG/Uyu8bohgWcXaWsa6TfsC+bqotmGrL5OU7 fO/WsWjx+KNRxGVdrTqwKuyFMbP6qNwEJdnkGcCV2TsB2qfqzeUP2rIfcHhmhnX+A+d4 oDvagyhcEj3YSbZV17Vu4Pa0JwOT7LV3/rJeiVAvsQxNcEXeTDPxxDCg2zONyI2F56Jj qUZpvNr4Gv7VKZKWEDQ2RBsp5mPvfmg4stRqwA65KTB6JhdnBDdQQE69HPfKASntHQzq WAMlJU+9wu01WHGmjl9oLFaL/b76GNrvNNkOwmGX5Ntgr1lx4EIX8huQk0UvFqZ5XhtR YJKQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=AN56KssOHU9dO2JLrRY/lBaRCmDeUrk+NIplJQv/4YA=; b=Drf3sTFYZ4RexOVQ5edTjyCfKShzNi+2DOEC3METR05OatBB22hAWQSOZv0cs1jbI1 L49qI6hkfwMNwNdhHXbnsXnMe96yuF84LGFKHk6xfyivdgwrMeFwTKR+tv85Sd8g9ipN ov/GPuutISN+VmoIYHEJwNbtTadau818JG7NNKwQEpBpEohQVgUbwmWRM8jtT5p/Fbv9 oHW764war5uKiuNzb5o6UzhHN6g6jm4kwIJczpSX62H4Bv2WZOYfoBsCgDgEi9BW/RlJ TzFd+vcDk4b1UAqg8Lh0whJid9L57Qmi2tYuMs8lC+9wHgU/Jx4waTKWfrP3JaQN4D1T C3KA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVbQd4AORj+5USXAucV/c+H6OxDgc1uXECR9XNXNkwIiPtd4Z11 BElUGhQZnbKx9nakfm8Q6bA0ZQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxq20FeoZnoKnZKR02O3ZiE6PnLF508tszVtQs+z6OPVVQrI3g8rsXPF4cS+l/B/1wn8A95Vw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:8bc5:: with SMTP id w5mr4593047wra.226.1557775358235; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CIPHER ([88.202.231.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm8321723wrx.75.2019.05.13.12.22.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 May 2019 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Daniel King X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" From: To: "'Kyle Rose'" , Cc: , , References: <155535945259.10773.14556389726269462856@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155535945259.10773.14556389726269462856@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 20:22:36 +0100 Message-ID: <007701d509c1$39535b80$abfa1280$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIbdTdcm2N8ImEWYCoeoc+jBrkXfKXclcrA Content-Language: en-gb Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 19:22:42 -0000 Hi Kyle,=20 Thank you for the review, it is most appreciated! We have addressed all your comments in the latest version of our I-D = (v11) but were advised to hold off posting until after the IESG = telechat. Comments inline (DK>>) on how we addressed said comments:=20 -----Original Message----- From: Kyle Rose via Datatracker =20 Sent: 15 April 2019 21:18 To: secdir@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; = ietf@ietf.org Subject: Secdir last call review of = draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 Reviewer: Kyle Rose Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's = ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These = comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. = Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other = last call comments. For background, Wikipedia has the following to say about PCE: q( Routing can be subject to a set of constraints, such as Quality of = Service (QoS), policy, or price. Constraint-based path computation is a = strategic component of traffic engineering in MPLS, GMPLS and Segment Routing = networks. It is used to determine the path through the network that traffic should follow, and provides the route for each Label Switched Path (LSP) that = is set up. Path computation has previously been performed either in a management = system or at the head end of each LSP. But path computation in large, multi-domain networks may be very complex and may require more computational power = and network information than is typically available at a network element, = yet may still need to be more dynamic than can be provided by a management = system. Thus, a PCE is an entity capable of computing paths for a single or set = of services. A PCE might be a network node, network management station, or dedicated computational platform that is resource-aware and has the = ability to consider multiple constraints for sophisticated path computation. PCE applications compute label switched paths for MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering. ) The document is nearly ready. In addition to numerous grammatical errors throughout, I see one minor but substantive issue. In section 6.1.2, the = last sentence reads: q( This means that a parent PCE must be configured with the identities and security credentials of all of its child PCEs, or there must be some form of shared secret that allows an unknown child PCE to be authorized by the parent PCE. ) A secret shared by more than two parties cannot be used to establish = identity. If there are two, then assuming exfiltration and reflection attacks are = not part of your threat model, each party knows it is talking to the single = other legitimate possessor of the shared secret. If there are more than two, = this is no longer the case. That said, in this case it's not clear you need to = identify individual child PCEs, and so (notwithstanding potential impersonation = attacks in a shared secret scheme) you may wish to shorten this sentence to: q( This means that a parent PCE MUST* be able to cryptographically = authenticate requests from child PCEs. ) The choice of authentication scheme can then be left to implementors, or recommendations to a different document. You might add a sentence to the security considerations section suggesting that multi-party shared key authentication schemes are not recommended for inter-domain = relationships because of the potential for impersonation and repudiation and for the operational difficulties should revocation be required. DK>> Thanks for the comments and especially the text update! We have = used your suggestion directly, and also expanded the security = discussion. The I-D now includes the following text in Section .1.2. = Parent PCE >> The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from authorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives requests from an unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped. This means=20 that a parent PCE MUST be able to cryptographically authenticate=20 requests from child PCEs. =20 Multi-party shared key authentication schemes are not recommended for inter-domain relationships because of the potential for impersonation and repudiation and for the operational difficulties should=20 revocation be required. =20 The choice of authentication schemes to employ may be left to=20 implementers of H-PCE and are not discussed further in this document. << *Whether this "MUST" should be BCP 14 language or not is unclear to me. DK>> We felt we should mandate "MUST" in this document and then pickup = discussion on methods and schemes in a future document as required. =20 BR, Dan and the other authors.=20 From nobody Mon May 13 12:25:11 2019 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 63AB512023C for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:09 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 rXQV9YDrsfpM for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8717E1200C5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id e15so4155024wrs.4 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Z1rZOxaR8m4wE3Ne1BsELybquWnG7337Cuboy1A2ZpY=; b=u/KY4kX6B6FryTMtI/pNzX4Rg9rq/J/YLVLGnfpLsOjiywM+zfhOrlb/uk0adcwEWa oTtg/4pJyDCq3iFoNhYKOeC7PpvArzxpBtppulBG3a0RPPCFyzMjRrPhr9Fq2EHGt2tR VUcmBbTfc35ytqDq0a8I4iQJusO8t/Mt0wUk4KVceAKqHkJRpPKw03HUW8UkuphgdeYo pS9Yx/Ij/F6eUcyiwn8HCFy1QcU7Smu8XH0iwcYv3JzL6v4GXskgEE1fOEo9uTVu9aQ1 wdo89PJoSGcL1icy5mPk5PKD8rI1gNL+xqCwOB+4jpeqV7DhM18Q/d4ykIKShaqNfVVw I6hw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Z1rZOxaR8m4wE3Ne1BsELybquWnG7337Cuboy1A2ZpY=; b=I0beFj2gBZ5a2p5B9IY6pfRKrUGzNnOKmD29emYIuldb0PNqC3T1qOAynhl8xo29P8 aFWGberpm+rK4RSsBYtMy00WSdvFWDyfdXuff1NULgvc/pyd4lQFeCk9W/iAshpKXSoN u581Jq7tddplICLLrz2UvwtMCCPQejRWImcKbNG1UuS46aGfpOlyijhLBShc/kDWTY8+ E3QnuX7yBnq3XptUMmYKZvuASy9zZ7iJdF14JgniI2h3h2iSV4QlqjFOA7NoekyW1Jr6 kWie2odKOe5LF/flY5fQP0H+rVCPtb2XDPiLcIuXvm5pIkkLwgrtoqeGj+6Rb51UxhUZ l3hg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWudYABlm355A9qvNUPUfRvT6pBCjrCv7I5HPDHpmukC+chmMI/ q7JDPskVXa2335thjzznypVfWQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqylmLxI84MEgsxjCEU6/mThkHm+GeNNkmv6DRhkNh9F0ggsuUzQjVPclwhbOLd6uxYofKc0Yg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:d081:: with SMTP id y1mr18517719wrh.283.1557775504793; Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CIPHER ([88.202.231.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f81sm374609wmf.10.2019.05.13.12.25.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 May 2019 12:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Daniel King X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" From: To: "'Mike McBride'" , Cc: , , References: <155113646185.10637.8298004858075315120@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155113646185.10637.8298004858075315120@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 20:25:02 +0100 Message-ID: <007801d509c1$90966090$b1c321b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQG+ES6JhOVysTjiKqeoh3yJTvsHhaaXYCyg Content-Language: en-gb Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 19:25:10 -0000 Thanks again Mike for all your thorough review, and valuable = comments/suggestions, and especially text changes!=20 All of these NITS have been squashed in our latest version (v11) which = will post once the IESG telechat is complete.=20 BR, Dan and the other authors.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Mike McBride =20 Sent: 25 February 2019 23:14 To: rtg-dir@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: Rtgdir last call review of = draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09 Reviewer: Mike McBride Review result: Has Nits I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. = The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related = drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on = special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the = Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it = would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last = Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion = or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09 Reviewer: Mike McBride Review Date: 25 February 2019 IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC) Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is near ready for publication. It has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: Great job on the draft and congrats on near publication. It was a tad = difficult to follow certain areas of the document and I therefore offer = suggestions to improve the readability. Major issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits for your consideration: 1. Page 4: Replace: A child PCE may be responsible for a single domain or multiple domains, = it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its own domain topology information. With: A child PCE may be responsible for single or multiple domains and is = used to compute..." 2. Page 4: Replace: In addition, the parent PCE may be requested to provide only the = sequence of domains to a child PCE so that alternative inter-domain path computation procedures, including Per Domain (PD) [RFC5152] and Backwards Recursive = Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441] may be used. With: The parent PCE may be requested to provide only the sequence of domains = to a child PCE so that alternative inter-domain path computation procedures, including Per Domain (PD) [RFC5152] and Backwards Recursive Path = Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441], may be used. 3. Page 5: Replace: This could be done via With: Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under "Learning". 4. Page 5: Replace: The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is = applicable to environments with small groups of domains where visibility from the = ingress LSRs is limited. As highlighted in [RFC7399] applying the hierarchical = PCE model to large groups of domains such as the Internet is not considered feasible or desirable. With: Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under "Stateful". 5. Page 10: Replace: The Domain-ID TLV when used in the OPEN object, identify the domains = served by the PCE. With: Add a comma after TLV s/identify/identifies 6. Page 12: Replace: The usage of Domain-ID TLV carried in an OPEN object is used to indicate = a (list of) managed domains and is described in Section 3.3.1. This TLV = when carried in an RP object, indicates the destination domain ID. With: Use of commas. Comma after 'Domain-ID TLV' and 'object'. And after 'This = TLV'. 7. Page 12: Replace: If a Domain-id TLV is used in the RP object, and the destination is not actually in the indicated domain, then the parent PCE should respond = with a NO-PATH object and NO-PATH VECTOR TLV should be used, and a new bit = number is assigned to indicate "Destination not found in the indicated domain" = (see Section 3.7). With: End the sentence after the second 'used' and then start the new sentence = with 'And a new bit...' 8. Page 14: Replace: The domain count metric type of the METRIC object encodes the number of = domain crossed in the path. With: change the second 'domain' to 'domains' or maybe 'domain's'. 9. Page 14: Replace: A PCC or child PCE MAY use these metric in PCReq message for an = inter-domain path computation meeting the number of domain or border nodes crossing requirement. With: Change 'these' to 'the' 10. Page 15: Replace: The Parent PCE MAY use these metric in a PCRep message along with a = NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting this = constraint. With: change 'these' to 'the' or change to 'PCRep messages'. 11. Page 16: Replace: The child PCE MAY also report its list of domain IDs to the parent PCE = by specifying them in the Domain-ID TLVs in the OPEN object carried in the = Open message during the PCEP session initialization procedure. With: This is a tough sentence to follow. With the following punctuation = changes is the intention still correct?: "The child PCE MAY also report its list of = domain IDs, to the parent PCE, by specifying them in the Domain-ID TLVs in the = OPEN object. This object is carried in the OPEN message during the PCEP = session initialization procedure." 12. Page 16: Replace: When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires = parental activity and H-PCE capability flags TLV was not included in the session establishment procedure as described above, the peer PCE should send a = PCErr message to the child PCE and specify the error-type=3DTBD8 (H-PCE error) = and error-value=3D1 (H-PCE capability was not advertised) in the PCEP-ERROR = object. With: Again, a hard, and long, sentence to follow. I'm not certain if its the = child or peer PCE that is doing the requiring, I'll go with the peer. See if = this is still correct after adding some commas: "When a child PCE sends a PCReq = to a peer PCE, which requires parental activity and H-PCE capability flags = TLV but which were not included in the session establishment procedure described = above, the peer PCE should send a PCErr message to the child PCE and should = specify the error-type..." 13. Page 17: Replace: When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires = parental activity and the peer PCE does not want to act as the parent for it, the = peer PCE should send a PCErr message to the child PCE and specify the error-type=3DTBD8 (H-PCE error) and error-value=3D2 (Parent PCE = capability cannot be provided) in the PCEP-ERROR object. With: strategically placed commas for clarity: "When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE, that requires = parental activity and the peer PCE does not want to act as the parent for it, the = peer PCE..." 14. Page 17: Replace: ERO With: first time ERO is being used in the document. Please call out Explicit = Route Object somewhere. 15. Page 17: Replace: o The parent PCE do not hear from a child PCE for a specified time; With: 'does not' instead of 'do not' that's it! ;-) I'm suggestion many changes but it'll go quick and make = it much more readable. thanks, mike From nobody Mon May 13 13:08:41 2019 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 E40D7120243 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:08:34 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org 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 HNEXmjYpJTMZ for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-xc29.google.com (mail-yw1-xc29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC60120247 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-xc29.google.com with SMTP id q11so12069573ywb.0 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:08:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+4Mzn1ATYyN24cW5npVhJaDmycO4t8pWFzjcxn2cPVk=; b=kxwvMYk/K9zvX/T8wyfCDlnIFQUt36AMEYX5FM8NfvJEZK+yzUmiL1etKj2vPUOeKy HvyCSHBI53UY8Qh4/eR0nGbdu9ZkiAGr7LWSG6zTJ4QnGC7hpB1eheB2SVojqNgxzpIx 3QwyxHlyKnhWjhA8oDmwztrGu0T9WET/n0ASI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+4Mzn1ATYyN24cW5npVhJaDmycO4t8pWFzjcxn2cPVk=; b=JDkmY5O/0ccsmXoz9gQPFvOGSS4L87We8go1JJZ68oSvnmt+ic3CU/x3h37hnO59J3 jCRAp04A3lOmGptpGHVoZ8sDetmQBd94sn/tx3gd8Ffdhmf94clqcGHgdMMGkRa9cEV0 W0o+ZmHf9eBIYph694ic2i+1Ww49USl/DPJGwSZWq+Q1JILNF4PI9XJcDZ2YHEIlqOSa kxRF2D6meqZQ5ZumRkOHeeETN1kI3uuIDeWEfYMe75UMMkOAGN9NXrOi+spZw0I5+42b F6jHIDOIjeElYROUbT0v/nAEr7c2uDnPc6sA62HxVL/xPSC79spdTPlPB+O0ps9A1kH5 beqg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX4TWHuclZEG2bETa/1aqT5uRy8gBsp+H5LETGkdDrr5+Hle5AI OujbybFSyykTYiAFXrSCV4IkCj9itfzveLaZgOKuzg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzFKi3PTEoJXg1VXCnSdWHhAb8qnLRV52Xc6cDwyF6FukgAazZfGpbVsIIbuT9TC+kObAvCMcjlTugL3PVtirY= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d947:: with SMTP id b68mr8249420ywe.464.1557778110947; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:08:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <155535945259.10773.14556389726269462856@ietfa.amsl.com> <007701d509c1$39535b80$abfa1280$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <007701d509c1$39535b80$abfa1280$@olddog.co.uk> From: Kyle Rose Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 16:08:19 -0400 Message-ID: To: daniel@olddog.co.uk Cc: IETF SecDir , draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f13a5f0588ca7a2b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 20:08:35 -0000 --000000000000f13a5f0588ca7a2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sounds great! I look forward to reviewing the new version. Thanks, Kyle On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > Thank you for the review, it is most appreciated! > > We have addressed all your comments in the latest version of our I-D (v11) > but were advised to hold off posting until after the IESG telechat. > Comments inline (DK>>) on how we addressed said comments: > --000000000000f13a5f0588ca7a2b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sounds great! I look forward to revi= ewing the new version.

Thanks,
Kyle
<= /div>

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Kyle,

Thank you for the review, it is most appreciated!

We have addressed all your comments in the latest version of our I-D (v11) = but were advised to hold off posting until after the IESG telechat. Comment= s inline (DK>>) on how we addressed said comments:
--000000000000f13a5f0588ca7a2b-- From nobody Mon May 13 13:31:57 2019 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 E2E5012008C; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:31:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 gpx19MckBEQh; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (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 BDBB8120075; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4DKVWAq011439; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:31:32 +0100 Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C06822044; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:31:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 063A422042; Mon, 13 May 2019 21:31:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([213.205.198.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4DKVUuu001244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 May 2019 21:31:31 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , "'Alissa Cooper'" , "'Roni Even'" Cc: , , , References: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com> <006f01d509bf$f3edf740$dbc9e5c0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <006f01d509bf$f3edf740$dbc9e5c0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 21:31:31 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <016501d509ca$da082bb0$8e188310$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIWujtCCN4XrPFhwIxqOyq7y/YkkgKBxXpeAiT9l1WlwOd+kA== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 213.205.198.217 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24612.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.888-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--5.888-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24612.002 X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.888500-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: fE0JoqABJp1OM38HnYL3cf7Ge87NpaCwaMmm586o4gB7ZWRAqE4ZPWr4 /y/RCSUy/zge0+oncdf7Brv946bj5iWM+sp1XKwwvOAv94sAIMQL8TGleseLPBra6jjhXqeTGd1 VXI+QnqwBYQCJTpK4HzAaBOcCLNdVBmjPEm4v5DNNq5/Y+tFvW1WiBZGwRpH+6ZQigqVYehDx83 vPTy5LDcPX1Zxz1PXPYok0dCCCbDHoSi9uJV6wyZCANcFtZ7wT+LidURF+DB08CT+UyeMDYhSId 9SZL66WmeCmAGsWyHLDO+xbEI/WFhnVUjUNUvhlqtgK4BzlMLKD33mO/UVvMwCOLD+ckgKHxlmo in0ixe6mkYieAXD4DWKHpZv+RSYvVHa5Ax0DhIhz5CFYokzTg1+GoijagtkjmyiLZetSf8nJ4y0 wP1A6ADMMszeAZpzJdB0ntd9Tzp6yO81X3yak807y4cOIEcY0mgnTp4e35LI5opIGL7TxT0pFeY 3bN1FVZudgyTpyhTJ+3BndfXUhXQ== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 20:31:42 -0000 Hi, Thanks, Dan, for your response here. Just to follow up on one point: >> 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE >> sends an open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a >> P flag =1 and if yes what should be the action of the originator. I >> did not see any text about this case. > > DK>> According to RFC 5440, the Open message is not a request response > exchange. Both entities send an Open message, and indeed they may even > overlap. In our H-PCE extensions the P flag indicates that the sender wants > the receiver to act as its parent. In the example we give, it should be fine > for one party to not set the P flag in the first Open message seen on the > wire, and for the second part to set the P flag in the second Open message > seen on the wire. Therefore, I don't think this needs to be address as an > implementor should be familiar with the Open message behavior. Dan is right that the Open is not a request response exchange, but two Open messages that flow (one in each direction). The second might be sent in response to the first, or they might be originated independently and be matched up. The P flag applies to the sender's requested relationship with the receiver. It is possible for: - neither Open to have the P flag set - both Opens to have the P flag set - either one of the Opens to have the P flag set But, if both Opens have the P flag set then the session set-up must fail according to 3.1.1. If one speaker doesn't like the setting of the P flag it receives (most notably if the receiver does not want to act as a parent) it fails the session according to 4.1. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Tue May 14 06:22:30 2019 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 650141200B2; Tue, 14 May 2019 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Alissa Cooper Message-ID: <155784014240.30134.9098652330477477332.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 06:22:22 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:22:22 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for responding to the Gen-ART comments and my DISCUSS ballot. Upon re-reading 4.1 with my new understanding of the OPEN semantics, it's not totally clear why the "shoulds" in this section (dealing with the error conditions) are non-normative. From nobody Tue May 14 08:31:37 2019 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 95ACA12015D; Tue, 14 May 2019 08:31:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind_via_Datatracker?= To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= Message-ID: <155784789460.30154.4947205056148712259.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 08:31:34 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 15:31:35 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I recommend to also use normative language in section 6, especially 6.1.2.: "The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from authorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives requests from an unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped." From nobody Wed May 15 05:49:18 2019 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 A860E120047; Wed, 15 May 2019 05:49:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Alvaro Retana Message-ID: <155792454764.17625.18205220641029349549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 05:49:07 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 12:49:08 -0000 Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) rfc6805 should be a Normative reference; the contents reflect its importance in the definition of the extensions, and this text in the Introduction confirms it: This document defines the PCEP extensions for the purpose of implementing Hierarchical PCE procedures, which are described in [RFC6805]. [I am not balloting this point as a DISCUSS because I believe it is easy to resolve and trust the Responsible AD.] (2) The Shepherd's writeup mentions the existence of "commercial as well as open source implementations" -- these are documented in Appendix A. What code points are used in those implementation? Is the code deployed (in production)? I'm asking because all the code points (except the ones defined in this document, of course) have not been assigned by IANA...and have to wonder about potential collision (or even squatting). [I realize the Authors may not have an answer available...it would be very nice if someone (Authors/Shepherd/Chair/AD/anyone) would check. There might be nothing to worry about; better safe than sorry.] (3) §3.2.2: It is not clear to me whether the Domain Type is a bit field (one per type), or if there are 256 possible types. Please clarify. (4) Related to the last point... §7.3 doesn't list which range is unassigned...nor whether the value 0 (assuming it is not a bit field) is available to assignment or not. (5) Please add a reference for PCEP-LS? (6) [nit] s/achild/a child (7) [nit] §3.2.1.1: The first paragraph is missing the closing ". From nobody Wed May 15 06:01:24 2019 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 57FBF1200BA for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.291 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no 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 0oSuKHlDO098 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98491200A4 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 453vnX2GbNz21jV for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.23]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 453vnX1g58zDqC6 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.31) by OPEXCAUBM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.13.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:19 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.104] (10.168.234.2) by OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:19 +0200 To: References: <23743_1554818758_5CACA6C6_23743_383_1_70372f0e-4531-b398-6d3a-af97c7d7f40e@orange.com> <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> From: Organization: Orange Message-ID: <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 14:58:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.168.234.2] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:01:23 -0000 Hi all, We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we prefer detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you believe these I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to) implement any of them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as well. Thanks, ADJ On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: > Hi all, > > Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute, do > not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status. > > Thanks, > > Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both >> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these >> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. >> >> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs >> know privately. >> >> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April 30. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From nobody Wed May 15 06:18:32 2019 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 542F412012E; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux Message-ID: <155792630433.17533.11328339622428827853.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 06:18:24 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:18:25 -0000 Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, thanks for this Document. I have a couple of comments/suggestions: 3.2.1 If the PCE understands the H-PCE path computation request but did not advertise its H-PCE capability, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=TBD8 ("H-PCE error") and Error-Value=1 ("Parent PCE Capability not advertised"). I believe the description of the error is incorrect and should be: "H-PCE Capability not advertised" 3.6. SVEC Object o O (Domain diverse) bit - TBD14 You call it the O bit here but not in the IANA registry. I guess the two should be consistent. In IANA section: s/H-PCE-FLAGS/H-PCE-FLAG/ (twice) s/assign three new/assign four new/ typos s/suitible /suitable/ s/Aditionally/Additionally/ From nobody Wed May 15 06:27:34 2019 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 293C81202E5; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:27:13 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 9lagOiqIJNfe; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it1-x130.google.com (mail-it1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19E4120254; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it1-x130.google.com with SMTP id i63so64849ita.3; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:27:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bI2zZAQrjUup+W2weNH5phwmUIKCHhxfGMAmMdtBwl8=; b=UtMuIY7OvY7tJv8lnk4IHQ9P2Znq92FCQJQsOEKK2DpHubimcJb5MLVi1lDpsyEK39 kXejKFuBUBeDDx1qPUfXrt6eP5+btxa+lBevVaz3nAVA7gaqomAN4ZIMl5eNfRgSmvk6 wiryx/hQ1zyr1byLuZjdy3yjW8jq3BnWWUo/QISzVHV60pVNBd+Z68SciY/7MZWOY/Cd SbHiMivFHn+LBB6tBtjHI6k8oKXV6ibA54RFKdPLy5Tn8yoWFZXx/mVQDn81LUBGRSVN T2eFygRabnCDB6/iEgj1VsdVrVWYueyMXXD/CPK4gvHg4Dr6pNZNA1+bhFSHzTd5RT3z +baw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bI2zZAQrjUup+W2weNH5phwmUIKCHhxfGMAmMdtBwl8=; b=fiLsTLoGaUc9rpW9qAvQn4ce3azk0EN+fVGY1oBzJlMn/ZoGsnVubUvlDflQiZQCMR AbCjjd08Qcki6f6dM1+T5MAoMZyaJERReIoAURagLLmSetltsZIyxjVlaBmkMFPklRw3 EwZmBDxvhbWDbNE1W0lGRCLjBesG8jcZJrPzEGsm5yLufRbaA2k+9KeA4Ky8TufrVUCT xlko4YaFL9mnfjwlMQ34HmlYyK7rU10HFDY9SPpJk+ZpBUU84D84e8S6X8hohjx3Srbo dfjmasomNrxn/uSzinoyuvjk02Ka4OERaPWwXNH4jHsI30UYT5uL4u9450eBTf/yNpv6 JfCg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV8vZsBbpfnWBp0/MNexggnNWd1AAXf/iN4ieUMf3Tv+lGXtaY0 0FjdmUrSW5wgnDPYm63l6MK3GtU2Mx+k1IEnV1o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyWz/AfM1PTlcqTR1ZEQotS2JdzUfvC5usVB38BZMmvE4p0+KvCVxbUYXmzhhalozPG7KqUFzPkgaEB+g5s5nY= X-Received: by 2002:a02:5143:: with SMTP id s64mr28162956jaa.54.1557926830078; Wed, 15 May 2019 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <155792454764.17625.18205220641029349549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155792454764.17625.18205220641029349549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:56:33 +0530 Message-ID: To: Alvaro Retana Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 13:27:19 -0000 Hi Alvaro, Responding to this comment - > (2) The Shepherd's writeup mentions the existence of "commercial as well as > open source implementations" -- these are documented in Appendix A. What code > points are used in those implementation? Is the code deployed (in production)? > I'm asking because all the code points (except the ones defined in this > document, of course) have not been assigned by IANA...and have to wonder about > potential collision (or even squatting). > > [I realize the Authors may not have an answer available...it would be very nice > if someone (Authors/Shepherd/Chair/AD/anyone) would check. There might be > nothing to worry about; better safe than sorry.] > For the implementations I am aware of and remember, the code is not deployed in production yet and the experimental code points was used (as per RFC8356 where possible), with the plan to update the code once IANA allocation is done. I will re-check. Thanks! Dhruv (Shepherd) From nobody Wed May 15 12:40:54 2019 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 15DEB1200B1; Wed, 15 May 2019 12:40:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , pce-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Roman Danyliw Message-ID: <155794925207.30668.13964494723213698440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 12:40:52 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 19:40:52 -0000 Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: 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-applicability-actn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate all of the references to the various security considerations in Section 7. My primary question in reading this section was “Does the use of PCE in an ACTN introduce any additional vulnerabilities/threats/residual risk and how is this addressed?” as this document was focused on the applicability of PCE in ACTN. (1) I wasn’t sure how [RFC5440] and [RFC6952] were applying specifically to the ACTN use case. (2) I wasn’t sure how to use the guidance in the third paragraph, “As per [RFC8453] …”. It notes that [RFC8453] outlines both needed security properties and threats; and reiterates that [RFC8453] states that ACTN should have “rich security features”. The link and relevance to PCE was not evident. From nobody Wed May 15 12:42:51 2019 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 26E5812008A; Wed, 15 May 2019 12:42:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Roman Danyliw Message-ID: <155794937014.30721.8514006577664746897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 12:42:50 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 19:42:50 -0000 Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A few simple items in the Security Considerations (Section 8): (1) s/security requirements defined in [RFC5440]/security considerations defined in [RFC5440]/. The motivation for this change is that the discussion of vulnerabilities and mitigations in [RFC5440] also applies. (2) Please include a reference to RFC7525 when recommending TLS/RFC8253 From nobody Wed May 15 21:16:34 2019 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 A80CB120091; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:16:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: <155798018568.30707.1345795311254588749.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:16:25 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 04:16:26 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for a well-written document. A couple of minor editorial comments: — Section 3.2.2 — The value part comprises of - We don’t say “comprises of”, and the dash isn’t right. Make it: The value part comprises: — Section 3.3.2 — The usage of Domain-ID TLV, carried in an OPEN object, is used to Remove “usage of”, as it’s redundant. From nobody Wed May 15 21:19:22 2019 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 D400612003E; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: <155798036085.30524.17695782244955344846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:19:20 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 04:19:21 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for a well-written document. A procedural point: as Dhruv is listed as a contributing author, it would have been better had someone else been assigned as the document shepherd. Not a big thing, but something to remember for next time. A couple of minor editorial comments: — Section 3.2.2 — The value part comprises of - We don’t say “comprises of”, and the dash isn’t right. Make it: The value part comprises: — Section 3.3.2 — The usage of Domain-ID TLV, carried in an OPEN object, is used to Remove “usage of”, as it’s redundant. From nobody Wed May 15 21:37:06 2019 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 EE582120041; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:36:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: <155798141596.30658.5711248506243360688.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:36:55 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 04:36:56 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: 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-applicability-actn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this: we don’t do applicability statements often enough, and I think they can be quite useful. From nobody Wed May 15 22:08:42 2019 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 D011D120077; Wed, 15 May 2019 22:08:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 o1tgBaGX7BqK; Wed, 15 May 2019 22:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 C2E2312006D; Wed, 15 May 2019 22:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E75436FCB2CF88FF0703; Thu, 16 May 2019 06:08:30 +0100 (IST) Received: from BLREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.171) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 16 May 2019 06:08:30 +0100 Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.86]) by blreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 16 May 2019 10:38:19 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody To: Roman Danyliw , The IESG CC: "draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-chairs@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHVC1Y/gGcQ8k6oYEe+KqrNQGcgtqZtLWlw Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 05:08:19 +0000 Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8DA743EC@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> References: <155794925207.30668.13964494723213698440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <155794925207.30668.13964494723213698440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, 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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 05:08:35 -0000 SGkgUm9tYW4sIA0KDQpUaGFua3MgZm9yIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMuIA0KDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0NCj4gQ09NTUVOVDoNCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiANCj4gSSBhcHByZWNpYXRlIGFsbCBv ZiB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyB0byB0aGUgdmFyaW91cyBzZWN1cml0eSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucw0K PiBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDcuICBNeSBwcmltYXJ5IHF1ZXN0aW9uIGluIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhpcyBzZWN0 aW9uIHdhcyDigJxEb2VzIHRoZQ0KPiB1c2Ugb2YgUENFIGluIGFuIEFDVE4gaW50cm9kdWNlIGFu eSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsDQo+IHZ1bG5lcmFiaWxpdGllcy90aHJlYXRzL3Jlc2lkdWFsIHJpc2sgYW5k IGhvdyBpcyB0aGlzIGFkZHJlc3NlZD/igJ0gYXMgdGhpcw0KPiBkb2N1bWVudCB3YXMgZm9jdXNl ZCBvbiB0aGUgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eSBvZiBQQ0UgaW4gQUNUTi4NCj4gDQo+ICgxKSBJIHdhc27i gJl0IHN1cmUgaG93IFtSRkM1NDQwXSBhbmQgW1JGQzY5NTJdIHdlcmUgYXBwbHlpbmcgc3BlY2lm aWNhbGx5DQo+IHRvIHRoZSBBQ1ROIHVzZSBjYXNlLg0KPiANCltbRGhydXYgRGhvZHldXSBSRkM1 NDQwIHRhbGtzIGFib3V0IHZhcmlvdXMgYXR0YWNrIHZlY3RvcnMsIGFjY2VzcyBwb2xpY2llcyB0 byBQQ0VQIHdoaWNoIGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gQUNUTiBhcyB3ZWxsLiBSRkM2OTUyIGNhbiBiZSByZW1v dmVkLiBIb3cgYWJvdXQgdGhpcyAtIA0KDQogICBWYXJpb3VzIHNlY3VyaXR5IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRp b25zIGZvciBQQ0VQIGFyZSBkZXNjcmliZWQgaW4gW1JGQzU0NDBdDQogICBhbmQgW1JGQzgyNTNd LiAgU2VjdXJpdHkgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgYXMgc3RhdGVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gMTAuMSwNCiAg IFNlY3Rpb24gMTAuNiwgYW5kIFNlY3Rpb24gMTAuNyBvZiBbUkZDNTQ0MF0gY29udGludWUgdG8g YXBwbHkgb24gUENFUA0KICAgd2hlbiB1c2VkIGFzIEFDVE4gaW50ZXJmYWNlLiAgRnVydGhlciwg dGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBsaXN0cyB2YXJpb3VzDQogICBleHRlbnNpb25zIG9mIFBDRVAgdGhhdCBh cmUgYXBwbGljYWJsZSwgZWFjaCBvZiB0aGVtIHNwZWNpZnkgdmFyaW91cw0KICAgc2VjdXJpdHkg Y29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgd2hpY2ggY29udGludWUgdG8gYXBwbHkgaGVyZS4gICANCg0KPiAoMikg SSB3YXNu4oCZdCBzdXJlIGhvdyB0byB1c2UgdGhlIGd1aWRhbmNlIGluIHRoZSB0aGlyZCBwYXJh Z3JhcGgsIOKAnEFzIHBlcg0KPiBbUkZDODQ1M10g4oCm4oCdLiAgSXQgbm90ZXMgdGhhdCBbUkZD ODQ1M10gb3V0bGluZXMgYm90aCBuZWVkZWQgc2VjdXJpdHkNCj4gcHJvcGVydGllcyBhbmQgdGhy ZWF0czsgYW5kIHJlaXRlcmF0ZXMgdGhhdCBbUkZDODQ1M10gc3RhdGVzIHRoYXQgQUNUTg0KPiBz aG91bGQgaGF2ZSDigJxyaWNoIHNlY3VyaXR5IGZlYXR1cmVz4oCdLiAgVGhlIGxpbmsgYW5kIHJl bGV2YW5jZSB0byBQQ0Ugd2FzDQo+IG5vdCBldmlkZW50Lg0KPiANCltbRGhydXYgRGhvZHldXSBU aGUgbmV4dCBwYXJhZ3JhcGggaGFzIC0gDQoNCiAgIFdoZW4gUENFUCBpcyB1c2VkIGFzIGFuIEFD VE4gaW50ZXJmYWNlLCB0aGUgc2VjdXJpdHkgb2YgUENFUCBwcm92aWRlZA0KICAgYnkgVHJhbnNw b3J0IExheWVyIFNlY3VyaXR5IChUTFMpIFtSRkM4MjUzXSwgYXMgcGVyIHRoZQ0KICAgcmVjb21t ZW5kYXRpb25zIGFuZCBiZXN0IGN1cnJlbnQgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGluIFtSRkM3NTI1XSwgaXMgdXNl ZC4NCg0KSSB3aWxsIG1lcmdlIHRoaXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgcGFyYWdyYXBoIHRvIGxp bmsgaXQgYW5kIGhpZ2hsaWdodCB0aGUgUENFUCBzZWN1cml0eSBmZWF0dXJlLiANCg0KV29ya2lu ZyBDb3B5OiBodHRwczovL3Jhdy5naXRodWJ1c2VyY29udGVudC5jb20vZGhydXZkaG9keS1odWF3 ZWkvaWV0Zi9tYXN0ZXIvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eS1hY3RuLTEyLnR4dA0K RGlmZjogaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDE9ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Ut YXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eS1hY3RuLTExJnVybDI9aHR0cHM6Ly9yYXcuZ2l0aHVidXNlcmNvbnRlbnQu Y29tL2RocnV2ZGhvZHktaHVhd2VpL2lldGYvbWFzdGVyL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWFwcGxpY2Fi aWxpdHktYWN0bi0xMi50eHQNCg0KVGhhbmtzISANCkRocnV2DQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBQY2UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+ IFBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bj ZQ0K From nobody Thu May 16 04:12:05 2019 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 B2C0A120173; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:03 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 wabwBpy7vRfo; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D9B112017F; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id x24so2238171ion.5; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XaXPU/SDZ6YwgigRUptyXnhaqYQbtx+xh6cqQmg/3EA=; b=liLrzEbwCUARqc9Xj5kVxfD5SfFIUhUcg7PptcXkTZofFygMJPmTyzSX+PlPUfbqah F8VdhECdsFZzEaGTSJA+mUVjGrnzXrTIJQXUyoJiCW9Yd2UbJOeWjVAOahvYQjJ94Gz4 GMqI5NRwf7VtHiVT9eRg0gd60YlPa1wN+xBBj40e1yByZeGn8OmJf5CpLqnqdkox9vAE YHHrOYQAW7dtBEq8Iy2Scrb3J5IbqAQCe959sol/kN+HCkk5dHTCYvo4V+CHaaEgXDk9 AzYRSTmbkV+eKW1dM2ZkMHOuWE6+Hn1YjMU9nw83o7oByLd8RoZkN6Zo8GiDPdtxQfhe YDcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XaXPU/SDZ6YwgigRUptyXnhaqYQbtx+xh6cqQmg/3EA=; b=eRRBsObeM7qaP42HAAO0ArAH7LTsMV2GW7TTBBpIcRqV/gVIiaSmRV2cSlkOhkPL6S 2pBKkQJRGftbzW0J9CPoKyQVeVb45SG0gJHz5/6ca1O78oGyyid+VRhCZvSjGNK6wlDt 2Qq3TFTi3Ssbp48lmjQhXxJHy7QdfQaN+xTaP5nh39aLF+YCp31MPndqXj6yU2OyAD1E j/s4x/oZJxB+vZjkD9OzQBUbzpDZYGhXnpICo1dM/xcOAEuR9cfP8qcc9Pm4BwBuaoBD tYeLAYGlxaxkR1Xz0YY3BRT4RoMpYxJkcHFXblpC4L0wjaEidCE3XHyFUeztMM2OewzA uPeg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWBiH4EpiwnDS0V8fGs4RFOiHaro9P8oP0svnjjYo9WcGUJ0wiq y3KmTza9OoyEV8eldcPM83On38/x+tS7q4D2UgFOfIXQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyp2F8LH/8rbv6AmRhdjuNuSOk0c29xqrrCa6lzae6yAlkoGnsyb6o3hLNT392T+kySdCECqp9QbqLkfN8r0yY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:204a:: with SMTP id z10mr25879606iod.158.1558005121042; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:41:24 +0530 Message-ID: To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Chair review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 11:12:04 -0000 Hi Authors, I did a chair's review of the I-D. Expect a separate shepherd review from Julien. I found minor issues that can be easily fixed. (1) The issue with number of authors on the front page is bound to come up, either provide valid justification to your shepherd or reduce to 5. (2) Add reference to RFC8051 in introduction, which had a section on protection. (3) It would be good to explicitly state that in PCE-initiated LSPs case, the association group is created by PCE. (4) Section 4.1. OLD: During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to PCE(s) as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. NEW: During state synchronization, a PCC report all the existing LSP state as described in [RFC8231], the the association group membership pertaining to a LSP is also reported as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAG. END Nits ---- s/Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)/Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)/ s/between one a pair of PCEs/between a pair of PCEs/ s/Stateful pce/Stateful PCE/ s/Path Protection Association Object Type/Path Protection Association Type/ s/[A|a]ssociation-type/Association type/ Section 4.4, extra "." at the end. Section 4.5, closing braces missing, end of 2nd paragraph. Expand on 1st use - PCRpt, PCUpd, PCInitiate... Regards, Dhruv From nobody Thu May 16 04:12:19 2019 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 31F2D120173; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:17 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 1TKG5Y08jrNj; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it1-x12a.google.com (mail-it1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5257B1202B5; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id u16so7971487itc.0; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Icf6TCKmi0dv2Bi955qr9TYr9YeNY9MLetB3e4drUow=; b=hNwDF4Hyb6iDcMXXpecLVhx0vvEeDFNEA8HvtrqUVEzTTPHZfuguPzJtBKeySwfslE 6Ate/58MFFy6q56RpzkTEga4w3D/W0CdGKN4SNkpfOWHkhBhTWmPKk7vCxnvnQdA9wWB 7dcLxS5WoYhS1n6KuUtABiFx4dSAAKdg33l588puHw5zvWSBY5WD8GgVUl9ww8JK/EVn gr8jkAMKDNbsINsDmUvHA7wpg/aR8L7bMGg2RQlA4/P9tA2mVp5gvkD8M/Qne2cC4Qas xAyHh5zXuz58L2+ymM4NONU9qgGLiNO44yY5QU4hpcQswmANk55IT/hoLF+j+5PW1jKj qQ4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Icf6TCKmi0dv2Bi955qr9TYr9YeNY9MLetB3e4drUow=; b=lMwzROiCnMxQo6tsiPQUdCxPWZEtqYS4LMrFgPkkHoelWFxvork+Oc/eIRpeQDv9sR 2GzSgrUZnIo7/AvqnKB6jpUhrT7CvlyQJ1ho+oPBwEXVnZ+aEyinbvrMEYE70ce6N6Y8 OWCqhOQ3X8Z1p6fkbCu/r+aUpvErKFu2od9FH9M2uX1PHAmGojWnfskZLvXmmKWXscl0 UuvPprXBDDkYJm8V7fpbZMAR24HWMntxoe3AQGRKQpd7BlYU+opJuOjVOC6RHb0MEIe2 Gr0Ts9sSc0O1Ub4KmlTC3crPIUDxc/XZo37Cpl97i0NBGr0E/t6vpYjrul06X5o5E0NP FW4g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpVad+iv+U2zqSqBOXSj8OTdD884yw+NULx4nXiNl79poG83y7 sbzXGg+aOnIarEkMSsKaJgssdnTjli++VlkeeI9xneuZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzjtbrSFadxYPEEQ3Nvn9EDWkeCG6fENvkZzfaWTwNWwVBoLHY36cEbj9jSZSrXL+cBO82RpOCj07dILmMUdE= X-Received: by 2002:a24:fd41:: with SMTP id m62mr11922849ith.67.1558005133135; Thu, 16 May 2019 04:12:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 16:41:36 +0530 Message-ID: To: draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Chair review of draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 11:12:17 -0000 Hi Authors, I did a chair's review of the I-D. Expect a separate shepherd review from Julien. A little effort needs to be made by the authors to make this I-D crisp. (1) Section 3, discussion related to SVEC feels incorrect inside a section called 'Motivation'. Lets create a new section (I made minor changes) - Relationship to SVEC [RFC5440] defines a mechanism for the synchronization of a set of path computation requests by using the SVEC (Synchronization VECtor) object, that specifies the list of synchronized requests that can either be dependent or independent. The SVEC object identify the relationship between the set of path computation requests, identified by 'Request-ID-number' in RP (Request Parameters) object. [RFC6007] further clarified the use of the SVEC list for synchronized path computations when computing dependent requests as well as described a number of usage scenarios for SVEC lists within single-domain and multi-domain environments. The SVEC object includes a Flags field that indicates the potential dependency between the set of path computation request in a similar way as the Flags field in the TLVs defined in this document. The path computation request in the PCReq message MAY use both SVEC and ASSOCIATION object to identify the related path computation request as well as the diversity association group. The PCE MUST try to find a path that meets both the constraints. It is possible that the diversity requirement in the association group is different from the one in SVEC object. The PCE would consider both the objects as per the processing rules and aim to find a path that meets both these constraints. In case no such path is possible (or the constraints are incompatible), the PCE MUST send a path computation reply (PCRep) with NO-PATH object indicating path computation failure as per [RFC5440]. (2) Section 3, I am not sure about this - Using the disjoint-group within a PCEP messages may have two purpose: o Information: in case the PCE is performing the path computation, it may communicate to the PCC the disjoint parameters. o Configuration: in case the PCC are configured with disjoint requirements, these are communicated to the PCE. This feels incomplete as it singles out information from PCE to PCC and configuration at PCC. Maybe better to re-word along our TLVs - where the disjoint status is included by PCE but configuration is included by both. (3) Section 4.1, But a PCE may be limited in how many LSPs it can take into account when computing disjointness. If a PCE receives more LSPs in the group than it can handle in its computation algorithm, it SHOULD apply disjointness computation to only a subset of LSPs in the group. The subset of disjoint LSPs will be decided by PCE as a local matter. You then say Local polices on the PCC or PCE MAY define the computational behavior for the other LSPs in the group. For example, the PCE may provide no path, a shortest path, or a constrained path based on relaxing disjointness, etc. Better to merge the above with the previous paragraph and also include some text on the disjoint status information. (4) Section 4.2, * P (Shortest path) bit: when set, this indicates that the computed path of the LSP SHOULD satisfies all constraints and objective functions first without considering the diversity constraint. This means that an LSP with P flag set should be placed as if the disjointness constraint has not been configured, while the other LSP in the association with P flag unset should be placed by taking into account the disjointness constraint. Setting P flag changes the relationship between LSPs to a unidirectional relationship (LSP 1 with P=0 depends of LSP 2 with P=1, but LSP 2 with P=1 does not depend of LSP 1 with P=0). Instead of unidirectional, maybe one-sided relationship? It will be better to include this text from section 4.4 here instead - Multiple LSPs in the same disjoint group may have the P-flag set. In such a case, those LSPs may not be disjoint from each other but will be disjoint from others LSPs in the group that have the P-flag unset. Also, add "Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt." (5) Section 4.2, are all flags valid in DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV? What does 'P' and 'T' mean here? (6) Section 4.3, it would be good to limit the OF-Codes allowed inside the disjoint association to the new OF code defined in this document. Add an error in case some other OF code is used. (7) Section 4.4, we should remove 'both' as we lack this in PCEP-SR right now. An implementation may choose one of the paths or even use both (using both may happen in case Segment Routing TE is used, allowing ECMP). (8) Why 'MAY' in - When P-flag is set for an LSP and when ECMPs are available, an implementation MAY select a path that allows disjointness. It should be MUST or SHOULD. Can you do a check on RFC2119 keywords through out the I-D? (9) The IANA considerations section needs some more work. The request to IANA are not spelled out clearly, please review this section. (10) The manageability considerations needs some meat. Top of my head - reference to Yang, Operator configured range for disjoint group, number of LSPs inside an association group etc. Nits ---- - Expand on 1st use - PCRpt, PCUpd, PCInitiate, PLSP-ID... - Section 1, OLD [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE [RFC8231] or a stateless PCE [RFC5440]. NEW [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs in the context of a PCE which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviour), and is equally applicable to the stateful PCE [RFC8231] (active and passive modes) as well as the stateless PCE [RFC5440]. END -Section 2, the term LSR is not used. We could expand this section to point to some other useful terms, just by adding reference to where they are defined. - Section 4.1 OLD: The Association parameters, as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] as the combination of the mandatory fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object, that uniquely identify the association group, uniquely identify the disjoint group. NEW: The Association parameters (as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]) is the combination of the mandatory fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object, that uniquely identify the association group. END s/to uniquely identifying/to uniquely identify/ s/belonging to this associations/belonging to this association/ s/insurance/assurance/ - Section 4.2 s/relaxing disjointness constraint at all /relaxing disjointness constraint fully/ add OF-List TLV (as per Section 4.3) into the list of TLVs -Section 4.4 In figure 3, it would be good to say the cost of other links is 1? s/allowed to be longer/allowed to be costlier/ What is RTD? Is it round trip delay? Better to use Path delay metric as per RFC8233 . OLD: Driving the PCE disjointness computation may be done in other ways by for instance setting a metric boundary reflecting an RTD boundary. NEW: Driving the PCE disjointness computation may be done in other ways, for instance by setting a path delay metric boundary. END -Section 4.5 OLD: All LSPs in a particular disjoint group MUST use the same combination of T,S,N,L flags in the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV. If a PCE receives PCRpt messages for LSPs belonging to the same disjoint group but having an inconsistent combination of T,S,N,L flags, the PCE SHOULD NOT try to compute disjointness path and SHOULD reply a PCErr with Error-type 26 (Association Error) and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) to all PCCs involved in the disjoint group. NEW: All LSPs in a particular disjoint group MUST use the same combination of T,S,N,L flags in the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV. If a PCEP peer receives a PCEP message for LSPs belonging to the same disjoint group but having an inconsistent combination of T,S,N,L flags, the PCEP peer SHOULD NOT try to add the LSP in the disjoint group and SHOULD reply with a PCErr with Error-type 26 (Association Error) and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch). END The change is suggested to make this more generic and not just for the PCRpt message. - Section 6, use [This.I-D] Thanks! Dhruv From nobody Thu May 16 13:56:59 2019 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 6AE54120120; Thu, 16 May 2019 13:56:57 -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: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: CC: db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <155804021736.19541.5610768557895726897.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 13:56:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Last Call: (Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 20:56:58 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter- AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-05-30. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used for computing services that traverse multi-area and multi-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) networks. This document examines the applicability of the PCE architecture, protocols, and protocol extensions for computing multi-area and multi-AS paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Thu May 16 20:33:36 2019 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 E359912006A for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 20:33:33 -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 CAzHYq9Niu_i for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 20:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 9174C12034B for ; Thu, 16 May 2019 20:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A6D7C6B0512813988810 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 04:33:27 +0100 (IST) Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 17 May 2019 04:33:27 +0100 Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.176]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 17 May 2019 11:33:21 +0800 From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection Thread-Index: AQHU7t1ssP2tO4QGKkaq6uMXGN/oMqZI/+yAgCLX6gCAAwvFQA== Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 03:33:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <23743_1554818758_5CACA6C6_23743_383_1_70372f0e-4531-b398-6d3a-af97c7d7f40e@orange.com> <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 03:33:34 -0000 Hi Chairs, I have read these documents and I feel these two documents are ready for pu= blication. Sorry for missing the email.=20 Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meuric@orange.c= om Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:58 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft= -ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection Hi all, We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we pref= er detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you believe thes= e I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to) implement any o= f them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as well. Thanks, ADJ On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: > Hi all, > > Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute,=20 > do not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status. > > Thanks, > > Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both >> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and=20 >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these=20 >> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. >> >> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs=20 >> know privately. >> >> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April 30. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou = copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez= le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Le= s messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline to= ute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used= or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From nobody Thu May 16 21:29:35 2019 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 09B78120167; Thu, 16 May 2019 21:29:25 -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: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pce@ietf.org Message-ID: <155806736494.19704.15235130184547024055@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 21:29:25 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 04:29:25 -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 : Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) Authors : Dhruv Dhody Young Lee Daniele Ceccarelli Filename : draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2019-05-16 Abstract: Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a 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 PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12 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 May 17 02:55:23 2019 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 5A8BA1200C5; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:55:21 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NNEERz4yGE2C; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 870A2120075; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id v7so4959594iob.10; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c998NSGukIMmkfMr+fxTV4OiJRSJm4t/tvitNOomOXY=; b=bRTVQkVHdseqWeZJSPkGbVDUVuWzdQ6QgnFKOQXkJ2plQo/dY9L7s/BquT0OAuj6bX tifuco8ugqElGNb2CLt2rFb/nGSNEIP/lFRqIZpCfHQYi9k70ruQOPyGQfvFOg2xvqPX MC6kn5Tdz6TZ/Env90c+MTJF3X3N1MHI15/AKLZUcvo4Nktu1mvv6/V1oVW+bnrP7uHz edO2XHrzE6jjw7i6cipMoeLrOpOlnSjQmc4D7kXOgwBL5ysczK5LlC+ryFJRs1cSVNE1 q1cfkNCBDzxsV/Icm8rrHte0R0So/ul7zqY6OMZU9/ObMY4hdurg6kkUdlTxH5+BgRfz 1qVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c998NSGukIMmkfMr+fxTV4OiJRSJm4t/tvitNOomOXY=; b=BT+xJotm7WfhqNvXb1/5zb5F4oT98w6FAti6U9cCB3EdG9a0fnylA1WKWdlUBBevvh WRu/Yde0lgqyVxEMv2x6+k7vt9CuuJLlLHIzemueFJi2hkr2VIXBPynUGVGm5Was6qBM 74maJqPacNsESEpUBxqWYaWuVbqSPYWuL7CNUvOj2EV90ieviIPbclEQCC+Ci9yvbu/6 G+kyHwoQzzEU48XXYREjIdR3nvQakaUXv3L5ddMca+MihLGFkQBbYkT/HkxUQxN/VgKh m81RGiWV1qJqKWlyxSctJ45UaHjSVKmiCsVdPzh1vKZ9pKZTfNt4O01q45ewd7MsG2IQ dA/g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWmhzX5ydfTHTyBeuN3Bd9AQ7z5SyP3UeZhRa5KoGRxm/2L2gr HntIIabx6+b2+U8ks1EUx/5EF5tjAznS5wabfXXm8g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyfVtpOfUpAEd2bWdv82sSEW3IARTXXH6bBeXi9r+J2DdyrwDN15w1fSuTpi1Kmkzt/2feOfuODPzoY3nEc+4k= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ce0e:: with SMTP id p14mr5206289iob.279.1558086915483; Fri, 17 May 2019 02:55:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:24:39 +0530 Message-ID: To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] WG LC prep for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 09:55:21 -0000 Hi Authors, In preparation for WG LC for this I-D, please update the document to include the 'Implementation Status' Section as per the new implementation policy [1]. You also have 7 authors, we usually limit to 5 on front page and rest as contributors [2]. Hari is assigned as the document shepherd for this I-D. There are no IPR declared on this I-D. We will start the IPR poll along with WGLC to reconfirm. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions/concerns. -- Hi WG, You don't have to wait for the official WGLC, add this I-D in your review queue and please provide comments! Thanks! Dhruv, Julien & Adrian [1] "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document basis." [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.1.1 From nobody Fri May 17 05:11:34 2019 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 AF7F61202BF; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:11:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=PntQ1nNC; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=ZiuThEyf 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 zqNeyywasamA; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88011120161; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:11:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1800; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558095090; x=1559304690; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3ISixxzwCgz3AAdWLFRU3x32+mfajOQIxxPQStq0leM=; b=PntQ1nNCX3CSaYtjdopQN4galcGR8IKJMEvIQoGEUb5jgD2OIHmUO74a 5tjRXIoovT11QPXyYdxd5FDG2CXoevjz7WghXcYPdA/Jmr/WrzGyNoBCK CBtr+aC2po0KEZA+OgIRztZ9UIBs0bBBjNmMBwDNJhrqtUec/St4pFlIf E=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AccYQjhRnZSukeekXPWqaXSLp5tpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESUDdfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOikhHdpLfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAADmo95c/4oNJK1kGwEBAQEDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBwMBAQGBUQYBAQELAYE9UANpVSAECygKhAiDRwOEUooigleJQI1ngS6BJAN?= =?us-ascii?q?UCQEBAQwBASMKAgEBhEACF4IdIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtHAyFSgEBAQEDEhE?= =?us-ascii?q?RDAEBNwELBAIBCBEEAQEDAiYCAgIfERUICAIEAQ0FCBqDAYFqAx0BAgyefQK?= =?us-ascii?q?BNYhfcYEvgnkBAQWFBg0Lgg8DBoEMKAGLTxeBf4ERRoJMPmsZAYEVRwEBAgG?= =?us-ascii?q?BOCiDCDKCJo11mWs5CQKCC4YuiG+DdoIchlSNJYxRgSWFRIFTjHcCBAIEBQI?= =?us-ascii?q?OAQEFgU84gVdwFYMngg+Db4UUhT9yAQGBJ4wQgTABgSABAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,480,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="277301720" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 May 2019 12:11:29 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4HCBTgb014387 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 May 2019 12:11:29 GMT Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:11:28 -0500 Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:11:19 -0500 Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:11:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=3ISixxzwCgz3AAdWLFRU3x32+mfajOQIxxPQStq0leM=; b=ZiuThEyfBwoWxHyIY1R9IvDVuI0eRHC6wP1CQSC+toxqflR5Q4fJrP3OknolDd3zRy44NkI4PfTdjCbntUoqsDI4av9s7gr8ljg6IuuZ+QAScs1klR6lEgmP7rfo4IFcGdPrZrFc2ANNvq/JJAJ23c40Axja8rjNvvo+5aXVBH8= Received: from BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.220.33) by BN8PR11MB3604.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.219.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.16; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:11:17 +0000 Received: from BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21da:1265:71b4:feed]) by BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21da:1265:71b4:feed%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.010; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:11:17 +0000 From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" To: Dhruv Dhody , "draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org" CC: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG LC prep for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request Thread-Index: AQHVDJa4jWbzjKFNI0WB8l2E37hlLKZvORfQ Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:11:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=msiva@cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.94] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 90c70601-2758-4754-023a-08d6dac0c3b3 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN8PR11MB3604; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN8PR11MB3604: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273; x-forefront-prvs: 0040126723 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(346002)(396003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(446003)(2501003)(66066001)(9686003)(26005)(316002)(486006)(86362001)(74316002)(8936002)(305945005)(6246003)(3846002)(53936002)(14454004)(478600001)(6306002)(966005)(99286004)(6116002)(55016002)(25786009)(11346002)(186003)(4326008)(71200400001)(71190400001)(110136005)(476003)(54906003)(66556008)(52536014)(33656002)(76176011)(6436002)(102836004)(7696005)(81156014)(66446008)(53546011)(64756008)(66946007)(73956011)(76116006)(66476007)(2906002)(81166006)(8676002)(14444005)(6506007)(7736002)(229853002)(256004)(68736007)(5660300002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN8PR11MB3604; H:BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: pe1XMHQi4G3xlGKYrXdOg921Xn9Uf+DXFn+Rg0+q0XBKxiKbRWqau2Imo/4Zg4Qh2o/XIAeh0kHgdEGIM3j8j0QuKg+IEFKawP8LNtceZ94Y7it9jc1Uji9nwR9+gjQcBRC1A3ETIP6WK8EcQvgX6Y3sIYeW0gsLnGnquD+hhtYV2fghrC1KagG2dDVTNBdfAATZ6D4x0MB6CPuVXkZV989vn3W73thK+pDj4Dk2wt2sy1FI/FiJaebHOSMywpYOqqOoPeJ8rO3ZUdIXMWmY5yYvORj7OPfBPs+xjS1kYufCri4x9RmX45xmi6CWiLz5DyhhmXDUuD/lqj48pD/j+NST+SRn2mX1bSw2SKmJYGXYlWqh4K5cdsmMMzRjZR/+snDrPBMYXG8gUWzakzHBf0Yquz4gsWpqdGZ9yBTrY3Q= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 90c70601-2758-4754-023a-08d6dac0c3b3 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 May 2019 12:11:16.9599 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR11MB3604 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.19, xch-rcd-009.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC prep for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:11:33 -0000 SGkgRGhydXYsDQoNCldlIHdpbGwgcHVibGlzaCBhbm90aGVyIHZlcnNpb24gd2l0aCA1IGF1dGhv cnMgYW5kIDIgY29udHJpYnV0b3JzIGFzIHdlbGwgaW5jbHVkZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBzdGF0 dXMuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNClNpdmENCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206 IERocnV2IERob2R5IDxkaHJ1di5pZXRmQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAx NywgMjAxOSA1OjU1IEFNDQpUbzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtbHNwLWNvbnRyb2wtcmVxdWVzdEBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KQ2M6IHBjZS1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDog V0cgTEMgcHJlcCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtbHNwLWNvbnRyb2wtcmVxdWVzdA0KDQpIaSBB dXRob3JzLA0KDQpJbiBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBmb3IgV0cgTEMgZm9yIHRoaXMgSS1ELCBwbGVhc2Ug dXBkYXRlIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSAnSW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gU3RhdHVz JyBTZWN0aW9uIGFzIHBlciB0aGUgbmV3IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIHBvbGljeSBbMV0uDQoNCllv dSBhbHNvIGhhdmUgNyBhdXRob3JzLCB3ZSB1c3VhbGx5IGxpbWl0IHRvIDUgb24gZnJvbnQgcGFn ZSBhbmQgcmVzdCBhcyBjb250cmlidXRvcnMgWzJdLg0KDQpIYXJpIGlzIGFzc2lnbmVkIGFzIHRo ZSBkb2N1bWVudCBzaGVwaGVyZCBmb3IgdGhpcyBJLUQuDQoNClRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyBJUFIgZGVj bGFyZWQgb24gdGhpcyBJLUQuIFdlIHdpbGwgc3RhcnQgdGhlIElQUiBwb2xsIGFsb25nIHdpdGgg V0dMQyB0byByZWNvbmZpcm0uDQoNClBsZWFzZSBmZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gcmVhY2ggb3V0IGlmIHlv dSBoYXZlIGFueSBxdWVzdGlvbnMvY29uY2VybnMuDQoNCi0tDQoNCkhpIFdHLA0KDQpZb3UgZG9u J3QgaGF2ZSB0byB3YWl0IGZvciB0aGUgb2ZmaWNpYWwgV0dMQywgYWRkIHRoaXMgSS1EIGluIHlv dXIgcmV2aWV3IHF1ZXVlIGFuZCBwbGVhc2UgcHJvdmlkZSBjb21tZW50cyENCg0KVGhhbmtzIQ0K RGhydXYsIEp1bGllbiAmIEFkcmlhbg0KDQpbMV0gIkFsbCBXRyBJLURzIGFyZSByZXF1aXJlZCB0 byBpbmNsdWRlIGFuICdJbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBTdGF0dXMnDQpTZWN0aW9uIChhcyBwZXIgUkZD Nzk0MikgdG8gZG9jdW1lbnQga25vd24gZXhpc3Rpbmcgb3IgcGxhbm5lZCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlv bnMuIFRoZSBjaGFpcnMgY2FuIG1ha2UgZXhjZXB0aW9ucyBvbiBhIHBlci1kb2N1bWVudCBiYXNp cy4iDQpbMl0gaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzczMjIjc2VjdGlvbi00LjEu MQ0K From nobody Fri May 17 05:40:07 2019 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 ED645120151 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=G8MzMhO2; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=OvlahISz 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 NmoKafotOtzo for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A846412004F for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 05:40:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3602; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558096801; x=1559306401; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DJm3lLNBa0eE7hppc+3ApIqpSpV3kmUmlcordCtBi9U=; b=G8MzMhO24eRUOAsN61uSsRSJLHTyqFL0YN8PcgQfg+gAVho7OWXD3UGY VZqSrdsk7FHooVuixd0dmUoojfnXVU3fGFIp7A4821//C1GuFb0qJhMXJ J/g7XwRN8wGoa4H5AoRBqFaTWvo/5/bP3Vkq+GvojTDfOsw03JQHMU+H6 A=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A0wFzchO42R7ETL8TdZol6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEuKU/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETB?= =?us-ascii?q?oZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj+N//0ZgQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AlAADzqt5c/4wNJK1kGwEBAQEDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBwMBAQGBUgUBAQELAYE9UANpVSAECygKhAiDRwOOdIJXlyeBLhSBEANUCQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQwBARgLCgIBAYRAAheCHSM1CA4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEEAQEQCwY?= =?us-ascii?q?RDAEBLAsBDwIBCBEDAQIBAgIfBwICAiULFQgIAgQOBQgagwGBagMdAQIMnwI?= =?us-ascii?q?CgTWIX3GBL4J5AQEFhQYYgg8DBoEMKAGLUBeBf4ERRoJMPoJhAQGBLgESASE?= =?us-ascii?q?VFYJeMoImixccgkKaJQkCgguTFoIdhlWLY4FDoggCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVECNGZ?= =?us-ascii?q?xcBU7gmyCDzeDOIUUhT9ygSmMFoEiAYEgAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,480,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="274891494" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 May 2019 12:40:00 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4HCe0B3025695 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 May 2019 12:40:00 GMT Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:39:59 -0500 Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:39:57 -0400 Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:39:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DJm3lLNBa0eE7hppc+3ApIqpSpV3kmUmlcordCtBi9U=; b=OvlahISz/idODdlS3O0rPgLrpgLGn0Ms1f/2wDByOBaWChd6HZnhCN6Tpw1O79+ptfRXWIbfGGNBIEnWBaMSjmJTpqa/7LxZn8a84l/Yf0Stc3pfQxnBcykheOwPjGkh/V+3mQZlaeGAknAhIxGc7Nkwdgx78dYeTPUxANTMcKA= Received: from BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.220.33) by BN8PR11MB3649.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.219.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.18; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:39:56 +0000 Received: from BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21da:1265:71b4:feed]) by BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::21da:1265:71b4:feed%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.010; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:39:56 +0000 From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" To: Julien Meuric CC: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection Thread-Index: AQHVCx699w5bpgWEWEaG4vMnexo4VaZvRFxg Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:39:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <23743_1554818758_5CACA6C6_23743_383_1_70372f0e-4531-b398-6d3a-af97c7d7f40e@orange.com> <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=msiva@cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.94] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a9a93d76-9aca-425a-c1f6-08d6dac4c493 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN8PR11MB3649; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN8PR11MB3649: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0040126723 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(136003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(22974007)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(76176011)(7696005)(66066001)(33656002)(5660300002)(71200400001)(316002)(74316002)(53546011)(6506007)(7736002)(71190400001)(305945005)(186003)(229853002)(6436002)(4326008)(26005)(6916009)(2906002)(102836004)(6116002)(3846002)(25786009)(446003)(486006)(99286004)(11346002)(55016002)(476003)(966005)(14454004)(8936002)(81156014)(73956011)(76116006)(52536014)(68736007)(478600001)(81166006)(66476007)(66446008)(66556008)(66946007)(64756008)(6306002)(9686003)(6246003)(5024004)(53936002)(86362001)(14444005)(256004)(8676002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN8PR11MB3649; H:BN8PR11MB3682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: YHD1SVV0GoD12HlvF8QQqcTDHBzPxk2GY+evx/X6PgGIiAYUNEF7ITocNy9XLRZAs4Hz9Qmt1a59j8IE4eNHz3+eKfvIHE3i/95VtHZ61G6S9YrRo+MMJ7Ix++0Qs9GNs5r77/0aP2u9aHkQ1pREZ3YMwS08CMIl5erUMXZabZfPc2EVLCmwQYRIEbF0MlAN/LhqltGNmgX3fMT9BcDNoXCDOg+2yWyP54blHMP4pPfAZC7A+Bqsh+Xv2fP+jC/yii0jOhnm1ELnEfTBe9qO320BkpO0s9CYMvwtHrENThr+7hpeH7UzgVAylkRood//lBS3N0eawICPX7Dd3aYlJHA1dmC80YklByFJHQ7uWxV/Fus6pSGqnVcrp2k7Hap25/W0zBn0WhbRysf8goVZeL+Bf6qbt5P9H7XQ+hYulUc= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a9a93d76-9aca-425a-c1f6-08d6dac4c493 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 May 2019 12:39:56.4637 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN8PR11MB3649 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.26, xch-rcd-016.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:40:04 -0000 SGkgSnVsaWVuLA0KDQpUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFyZSBpbiBnb29kIHNoYXBlIGZvciBwdWJsaWNh dGlvbi4gDQoNCkNpc2NvIGludGVuZHMgdG8gaW1wbGVtZW50IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYXQgYW4gYXBw cm9wcmlhdGUgdGltZS4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KU2l2YQ0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tIEZvcndhcmRlZCBt ZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogPGp1bGllbi5tZXVyaWNAb3JhbmdlLmNvbT4NCkRhdGU6 IFdlZCwgTWF5IDE1LCAyMDE5IGF0IDY6MzEgUE0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUGNlXSBXRyBMQyBm b3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtYXNzb2NpYXRpb24tZGl2ZXJzaXR5IGFuZCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBj ZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wYXRoLXByb3RlY3Rpb24NClRvOiA8cGNlQGlldGYub3JnPg0KDQoNCkhpIGFs bCwNCg0KV2UgaGF2ZSBub3QgaGVhcmQgZnJvbSBhbnlvbmUgb24gdGhpcyBXRyBMQyBiZWZvcmUg aXQgZW5kZWQuIFRob3VnaCB3ZSBwcmVmZXIgZGV0YWlsZWQgY29tbWVudHMsIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJl IGdyZWF0IHRvIHNlZSBhdCBsZWFzdCBpZiB5b3UgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVzZSBJLURzIGFyZSByZWFk eSB0byBiZSBzZW50IHRvIHRoZSBJRVNHLiBJZiB5b3UgKGludGVuZCB0bykgaW1wbGVtZW50IGFu eSBvZiB0aGVtLCB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIG5pY2UgdG8gbGV0IHRoZSBjaGFpcnMga25vdyBhcyB3 ZWxsLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQoNCkFESg0KDQpPbiAyMy8wNC8yMDE5IDEwOjUyLCBqdWxpZW4ubWV1 cmljQG9yYW5nZS5jb20gd3JvdGU6DQo+IEhpIGFsbCwNCj4NCj4gT25seSBvbmUgd2VlayBsZWZ0 IHRvIHJldmlldzogbm8gcmVhc29uIHRvIHdhaXQgZm9yIHRoZSBsYXN0IG1pbnV0ZSwgDQo+IGRv IG5vdCBiZSBzaHkgdG8gc2hhcmUgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQvb3IgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24g c3RhdHVzLg0KPg0KPiBUaGFua3MsDQo+DQo+IEFkcmlhbiwgRGhydXYgJiBKdWxpZW4NCj4NCj4N Cj4gT24gMDkvMDQvMjAxOSAxNjowNSwganVsaWVuLm1ldXJpY0BvcmFuZ2UuY29tIHdyb3RlOg0K Pj4gSGkgYWxsLA0KPj4NCj4+IFRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBpbml0aWF0ZXMgYSBidWxrIFdHIExhc3Qg Q2FsbCBmb3IgYm90aA0KPj4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtYXNzb2NpYXRpb24tZGl2ZXJzaXR5LTA2 IGFuZCANCj4+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBhdGgtcHJvdGVjdGlvbi0wNC4gUGxl YXNlIHJldmlldyB0aGVzZSANCj4+IGRvY3VtZW50cyBhbmQgc2hhcmUgeW91ciBmZWVkYmFjayB1 c2luZyB0aGUgUENFIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCj4+DQo+PiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSBhbiBpbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbiBvZiBhbnkgb2YgdGhlbSwgeW91IG1heSBsZXQgdGhlIGNoYWlycyANCj4+IGtub3cg cHJpdmF0ZWx5Lg0KPj4NCj4+IFRoaXMgZG91YmxlIExDIHdpbGwgbGFzdCBmb3IgMyB3ZWVrcyBh bmQgd2lsbCBlbmQgb24gVHVlc2RheSBBcHJpbCAzMC4NCj4+DQo+PiBUaGFua3MsDQo+Pg0KPj4g QWRyaWFuLCBEaHJ1diAmIEp1bGllbg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoNCkNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgZXQgc2VzIHBp ZWNlcyBqb2ludGVzIHBldXZlbnQgY29udGVuaXIgZGVzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9ucyBjb25maWRlbnRp ZWxsZXMgb3UgcHJpdmlsZWdpZWVzIGV0IG5lIGRvaXZlbnQgZG9uYyBwYXMgZXRyZSBkaWZmdXNl cywgZXhwbG9pdGVzIG91IGNvcGllcyBzYW5zIGF1dG9yaXNhdGlvbi4gU2kgdm91cyBhdmV6IHJl Y3UgY2UgbWVzc2FnZSBwYXIgZXJyZXVyLCB2ZXVpbGxleiBsZSBzaWduYWxlciBhIGwnZXhwZWRp dGV1ciBldCBsZSBkZXRydWlyZSBhaW5zaSBxdWUgbGVzIHBpZWNlcyBqb2ludGVzLiBMZXMgbWVz c2FnZXMgZWxlY3Ryb25pcXVlcyBldGFudCBzdXNjZXB0aWJsZXMgZCdhbHRlcmF0aW9uLCBPcmFu Z2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25zYWJpbGl0ZSBzaSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRlIGFsdGVy ZSwgZGVmb3JtZSBvdSBmYWxzaWZpZS4gTWVyY2kuDQoNClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0 dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBvciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIGluZm9ybWF0 aW9uIHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHByb3RlY3RlZCBieSBsYXc7IHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBkaXN0 cmlidXRlZCwgdXNlZCBvciBjb3BpZWQgd2l0aG91dCBhdXRob3Jpc2F0aW9uLg0KSWYgeW91IGhh dmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVy IGFuZCBkZWxldGUgdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQpBcyBlbWFpbHMg bWF5IGJlIGFsdGVyZWQsIE9yYW5nZSBpcyBub3QgbGlhYmxlIGZvciBtZXNzYWdlcyB0aGF0IGhh dmUgYmVlbiBtb2RpZmllZCwgY2hhbmdlZCBvciBmYWxzaWZpZWQuDQpUaGFuayB5b3UuDQoNCl9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpQY2UgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0DQpQY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vcGNlDQo= From nobody Fri May 17 07:25:02 2019 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 31729120044 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:25:00 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 RmNPOWbHacSp for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x636.google.com (mail-pl1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38186120161 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x636.google.com with SMTP id n8so3413479plp.10 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:24:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=32Zk1dgp/cCKqLKgYuWILorzklciD87KsF6So1VAwB4=; b=qkDc/ryOjTK2RY4ObhuFJjoJ1OKy+KDf/ShRoaJeXDZutSCaaUoamCs9HyWockUmjN QTPxMHkEqvfV1EHvqV9LBrWBR2+2Y25t4K0vrl3E6GML7htjoIQFfTvX7XL1mjoZBdXV i55SM/MWjilbji810g6RPZ9gcztz+8dPpTaGtV0k5hiG/pYz+o1U4cZmV5U+9YFkbcuJ ytgb9Nsi6shWjO+9JJ5ZcUqFixfllCSzpvd3lobhnNQE62znPW2cPJ29/ZBG/CLnKRS5 rrn7/hj55R8qOQq15kcvggIL+lzZrkM1AYyKNmlmO8tO9TE/M9RsL4ToQMsDTthxDLSm cYuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=32Zk1dgp/cCKqLKgYuWILorzklciD87KsF6So1VAwB4=; b=YZkdRWl4pUOuyn2ZycOJER56KsdeY3RnBfvNx6+/s98/lPOIsO0UABUmKi9Ap+stJ+ 5kaax/89Zvc5loXQWGUj0Nvrkcu1bc9Kf6ZOOgDhpUe9/H+Pqp1XEitPCX451giyeqUF ky4Bu7kBUx87xpObuFpiyt+eUOXLdehhpZ0uNrUi668eCpxA8/yx7vlO7trog8G5Hcm7 XiQpsW9wwbU9Jk8qGH6b/+NdLmpAWH8MOkXb6ZXPxGBY6AdxtL98GI9eIVFpAKXVsvMr ZYkm5wMRhR4n57OF0qp/GtKhgHWOjBZSKK6VQgFM2FIrNxAbYbvZVo3EoEtvFQD6KQ7f XSow== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWm4+P+RzPc82dsjaG4i4D4JWaDJ5vZrcttKsDWB4pzGyQZyRwZ yHHjpSBzhIc/HXVmXOlCNh8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyK/yDnjubuvYI5hrbSuoueZir6R/9XgikE5eUUf4JDHSKUoHcVTLYws0+/bLu047y8JRulGA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a0c:: with SMTP id v12mr58231398plp.184.1558103097717; Fri, 17 May 2019 07:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cbarth-mbp.jnpr.net ([66.129.241.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h123sm16004783pfe.80.2019.05.17.07.24.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 May 2019 07:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\)) From: Colby Barth In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:24:54 -0400 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5B132D2D-7F53-4E66-9809-F50834AB8433@gmail.com> References: <23743_1554818758_5CACA6C6_23743_383_1_70372f0e-4531-b398-6d3a-af97c7d7f40e@orange.com> <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> To: Julien Meuric X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 14:25:00 -0000 Julien- The documents are in good enough shape. Juniper has implemented the = path-protection draft and may implement the association-diversity draft = at the appropriate time. =E2=80=94Colby > On May 17, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Siva Sivabalan (msiva) = wrote: >=20 > Hi Julien, >=20 > The documents are in good shape for publication.=20 >=20 > Cisco intends to implement this draft at an appropriate time. >=20 > Thanks, > Siva >=20 > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:31 PM > Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and = draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection > To: >=20 >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we = prefer detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you = believe these I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to) = implement any of them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as = well. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > ADJ >=20 > On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: >> Hi all, >>=20 >> Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute,=20= >> do not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status. >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien >>=20 >>=20 >> On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: >>> Hi all, >>>=20 >>> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both >>> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and=20 >>> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these=20 >>> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. >>>=20 >>> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs=20= >>> know privately. >>>=20 >>> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April = 30. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>>=20 >>> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien >=20 > = __________________________________________________________________________= _______________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations = confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, = exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par = erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les = pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles = d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete = altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or = privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be = distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and = delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have = been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri May 17 08:23:42 2019 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 869711200EB for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netflix.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 RABnYgl16pwe for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4847A12009C for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id m1so4862935vsr.6 for ; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netflix.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=n8Q7lWFeY5qODYJpVQ+GSQqy3tAaBXYru4DzcYfaCVE=; b=KKwga9uAkqWRK7cEdRt0uTSlliVwyT5ceLEuSlo4qkI+Mv1MZZnoAgbSUdR5ZL5gmc 97IqKx0sVHlXrLtb/Ksef/ljGYf0mMLxY9GxHw1hu60IBMjos7tplUL6TrjD6hTNfvsT iYoOaIdmd1VWWbi+JX+TQD+1cpj+CEgil9PBk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=n8Q7lWFeY5qODYJpVQ+GSQqy3tAaBXYru4DzcYfaCVE=; b=qRM1CmLUeHKbRTZ7s65aMrHGOeVtByQUafBBaVVkqeFvM/7BkpkeE8wm70TwSOdXLP MNWRWa/GlEj9kU1B/NWvnPBkr+bKfprbIQzdFiMHxBFrM5BmLk4bfWILSrGCeetZrMEx BTWwIePGDK+05fxr+tjnTs/enp3KkAdlV4h1b/zaoS7zhu20RCS8OIu8y7JQaoUfvqtx gxiJcEBqxDWLi9oM5ZYA2SKn8RUx69umi6Ao+3LmlPqfTF6toWGEEIbUCL61UBS0nuPz Rp7SDCTIOs6NIVCmB4nDdgVaQwAXAuiKwM0vZCD6zFevYXo3G5I+qxpMr3eQXnvfKMR7 sPKw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUoxMtu4utj82lgQrD/85UsiVToXOtn3AqNi22HEnkRQMQdk9BQ GOZeRrKi5yeMXkaE8vAquTXmtKQBBb+ULzmJRGPZSg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyJpNsdyBLzJkkK/9nhVJ42fvtVHvhVadrMyqY4JnSq0MgjopZgCVArdFPmiteuAR96SVS04PocEWVg76tCfUQ= X-Received: by 2002:a67:2ed5:: with SMTP id u204mr8043773vsu.64.1558106617237; Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <23743_1554818758_5CACA6C6_23743_383_1_70372f0e-4531-b398-6d3a-af97c7d7f40e@orange.com> <6722_1556009550_5CBED24E_6722_135_1_e06df694-1cd9-7190-793a-5628e57be427@orange.com> <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <27461_1557925280_5CDC0DA0_27461_117_1_ea096cf3-c253-d1e1-02f2-708f158d1558@orange.com> From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 08:23:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Julien Meuric Cc: pce@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000719b4e058916f70c" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:23:41 -0000 --000000000000719b4e058916f70c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Julien, The documents are good for publication. Thanks, Hari On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:01 AM wrote: > Hi all, > > We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we > prefer detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you > believe these I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to) > implement any of them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as well. > > Thanks, > > ADJ > > On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute, do > > not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > > > > On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both > >> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and > >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these > >> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list. > >> > >> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs > >> know privately. > >> > >> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April 30. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --000000000000719b4e058916f70c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Julien,

The documents are good for publication.

Thanks,
Hari

<= div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:01 AM <julien.meuric@orange.com> = wrote:
Hi all,
We have not heard from anyone on this WG LC before it ended. Though we
prefer detailed comments, it would be great to see at least if you
believe these I-Ds are ready to be sent to the IESG. If you (intend to)
implement any of them, that would be nice to let the chairs know as well.
Thanks,

ADJ

On 23/04/2019 10:52, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute, d= o
> not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien
>
>
> On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meuric@orange.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both
>> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and
>> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these >> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list.
>>
>> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chai= rs
>> know privately.
>>
>> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April= 30.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adrian, Dhruv & Julien

___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les message= s electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--000000000000719b4e058916f70c-- From nobody Sun May 19 09:54:59 2019 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 C6B461200B9 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 09:54:57 -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 tIwXLcJRSAOB for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 58D95120045 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4D705C635E39301DBBCC for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:54:53 +0100 (IST) Received: from lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.52) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:54:52 +0100 Received: from lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.52) by lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:54:52 +0100 Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 19 May 2019 17:54:51 +0100 Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.177]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 20 May 2019 00:54:48 +0800 From: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)" To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection Thread-Index: AdUOY4VV6v3fqDTBQM6PHxY5+Tq4SA== Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 16:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.66.113] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 16:54:58 -0000 SGksIENoYWlycywgV0csIA0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhlIGxhdGUgcmVzcG9uc2UuIEkgaGF2ZSBy ZXZpZXdlZCB0aGUgdHdvIGRyYWZ0cyBhbmQgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVzZSB3b3JrcyBhcmUgcmVhZHkg Zm9yIHB1Ymxpc2guIEl0IGlzIHdvcnRoIG5vdGluZyB0aGF0IGJvdGggdGhlIHdvcmtzIGFyZSBm b2xsb3d1cCB3b3JrcyBvbiB0aGUgZ2VuZXJpYyBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1hc3NvY2lhdGlvbi1n cm91cCwgd2hpY2ggaGFzIGJlZW4gdW5kZXIgSUVTRyBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIHdpdGggcG9zaXRpdmUg ZmVlZGJhY2suDQoNClRoZSBmaXJzdCBkcmFmdCwgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtYXNzb2NpYXRpb24t ZGl2ZXJzaXR5LCBwcm92aWRlcyB0aGUgbmVjZXNzaXR5IGZvciBkaXZlcnNpdHkgdXNpbmcgdGhl IGFzc29jaWF0aW9uIGNvbmNlcHQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBwYXRoIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uIHByb2NlZHVy ZS4gVGhlIHNlY29uZCBkcmFmdCwgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGF0aC1wcm90ZWN0 aW9uLCBkZXNjcmliZXMgaG93IHRoZSBQQ0VQIGNhbiBiZSB1c2VkIHRvIGNvbXB1dGUgcGF0aCB3 aXRoIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQsIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIG5lZWRlZCB3aGVuIFBDQyBo YXMgc3BlY2lhbCBjb25jZXJucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgcGF0aHMuIFRoZSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5IGhh cyBiZWVuIGluIGhpZ2hseSBkZW1hbmQgZnJvbSBjYXJyaWVycyBhbmQgd2UgaGF2ZSBwbGFubmVk IHN1Y2ggZmVhdHVyZXMgaW4gb3VyIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLg0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UuIA0KDQpC ZXN0IHdpc2hlcywNCkhhb21pYW4NCg0KDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogUGNl IFttYWlsdG86cGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddILT6se0ganVsaWVuLm1ldXJpY0BvcmFuZ2Uu Y29tDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxOcTqNdTCMTXI1SAyMDo1OA0KytW8/sjLOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Ctb3zOI6IFJlOiBbUGNlXSBXRyBMQyBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtYXNzb2NpYXRpb24tZGl2 ZXJzaXR5IGFuZCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wYXRoLXByb3RlY3Rpb24NCg0KSGkg YWxsLA0KDQpXZSBoYXZlIG5vdCBoZWFyZCBmcm9tIGFueW9uZSBvbiB0aGlzIFdHIExDIGJlZm9y ZSBpdCBlbmRlZC4gVGhvdWdoIHdlIHByZWZlciBkZXRhaWxlZCBjb21tZW50cywgaXQgd291bGQg YmUgZ3JlYXQgdG8gc2VlIGF0IGxlYXN0IGlmIHlvdSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZXNlIEktRHMgYXJlIHJl YWR5IHRvIGJlIHNlbnQgdG8gdGhlIElFU0cuIElmIHlvdSAoaW50ZW5kIHRvKSBpbXBsZW1lbnQg YW55IG9mIHRoZW0sIHRoYXQgd291bGQgYmUgbmljZSB0byBsZXQgdGhlIGNoYWlycyBrbm93IGFz IHdlbGwuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KQURKDQoNCk9uIDIzLzA0LzIwMTkgMTA6NTIsIGp1bGllbi5t ZXVyaWNAb3JhbmdlLmNvbSB3cm90ZToNCj4gSGkgYWxsLA0KPg0KPiBPbmx5IG9uZSB3ZWVrIGxl ZnQgdG8gcmV2aWV3OiBubyByZWFzb24gdG8gd2FpdCBmb3IgdGhlIGxhc3QgbWludXRlLCANCj4g ZG8gbm90IGJlIHNoeSB0byBzaGFyZSB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFuZC9vciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlv biBzdGF0dXMuDQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcywNCj4NCj4gQWRyaWFuLCBEaHJ1diAmIEp1bGllbg0KPg0K Pg0KPiBPbiAwOS8wNC8yMDE5IDE2OjA1LCBqdWxpZW4ubWV1cmljQG9yYW5nZS5jb20gd3JvdGU6 DQo+PiBIaSBhbGwsDQo+Pg0KPj4gVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGluaXRpYXRlcyBhIGJ1bGsgV0cgTGFz dCBDYWxsIGZvciBib3RoDQo+PiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1hc3NvY2lhdGlvbi1kaXZlcnNpdHkt MDYgYW5kIA0KPj4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGF0aC1wcm90ZWN0aW9uLTA0LiBQ bGVhc2UgcmV2aWV3IHRoZXNlIA0KPj4gZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzaGFyZSB5b3VyIGZlZWRiYWNr IHVzaW5nIHRoZSBQQ0UgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0Lg0KPj4NCj4+IElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGFuIGltcGxl bWVudGF0aW9uIG9mIGFueSBvZiB0aGVtLCB5b3UgbWF5IGxldCB0aGUgY2hhaXJzIA0KPj4ga25v dyBwcml2YXRlbHkuDQo+Pg0KPj4gVGhpcyBkb3VibGUgTEMgd2lsbCBsYXN0IGZvciAzIHdlZWtz IGFuZCB3aWxsIGVuZCBvbiBUdWVzZGF5IEFwcmlsIDMwLg0KPj4NCj4+IFRoYW5rcywNCj4+DQo+ PiBBZHJpYW4sIERocnV2ICYgSnVsaWVuDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KQ2UgbWVzc2FnZSBldCBzZXMg cGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMgcGV1dmVudCBjb250ZW5pciBkZXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb25zIGNvbmZpZGVu dGllbGxlcyBvdSBwcml2aWxlZ2llZXMgZXQgbmUgZG9pdmVudCBkb25jIHBhcyBldHJlIGRpZmZ1 c2VzLCBleHBsb2l0ZXMgb3UgY29waWVzIHNhbnMgYXV0b3Jpc2F0aW9uLiBTaSB2b3VzIGF2ZXog cmVjdSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIHBhciBlcnJldXIsIHZldWlsbGV6IGxlIHNpZ25hbGVyIGEgbCdleHBl ZGl0ZXVyIGV0IGxlIGRldHJ1aXJlIGFpbnNpIHF1ZSBsZXMgcGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMuIExlcyBt ZXNzYWdlcyBlbGVjdHJvbmlxdWVzIGV0YW50IHN1c2NlcHRpYmxlcyBkJ2FsdGVyYXRpb24sIE9y YW5nZSBkZWNsaW5lIHRvdXRlIHJlc3BvbnNhYmlsaXRlIHNpIGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYSBldGUgYWx0 ZXJlLCBkZWZvcm1lIG91IGZhbHNpZmllLiBNZXJjaS4NCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMg YXR0YWNobWVudHMgbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIG9yIHByaXZpbGVnZWQgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24gdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGJ5IGxhdzsgdGhleSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGRp c3RyaWJ1dGVkLCB1c2VkIG9yIGNvcGllZCB3aXRob3V0IGF1dGhvcmlzYXRpb24uDQpJZiB5b3Ug aGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5k ZXIgYW5kIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cy4NCkFzIGVtYWls cyBtYXkgYmUgYWx0ZXJlZCwgT3JhbmdlIGlzIG5vdCBsaWFibGUgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2VzIHRoYXQg aGF2ZSBiZWVuIG1vZGlmaWVkLCBjaGFuZ2VkIG9yIGZhbHNpZmllZC4NClRoYW5rIHlvdS4NCg0K X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClBjZSBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNClBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0 aW5mby9wY2UNCg== From nobody Mon May 20 15:08:42 2019 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 C9CA512011E; Mon, 20 May 2019 15:08:27 -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: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: The IESG , db3546@att.com, Adrian Farrel , draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <155839010781.12882.13118332390004107277.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 15:08:27 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Document Action: 'Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 22:08:28 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)' (draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Martin Vigoureux and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/ Technical Summary Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a 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 PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. Working Group Summary The WG process has been smooth. At one stage, this work caught up with (or got ahead of) the core ACTN and it had to pause. But now RFCs 8453 and 8454 have been published, and advancing this work is appropriate. WG consensus was reasonable. Document Quality This is an Informational document, so implementation is moot. However, there are known to be implementations (product and research) that use the ACTN architecture and contain PCE as key component. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Adrian Farrel Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard From nobody Thu May 23 05:31:53 2019 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 42DD01200EA; Thu, 23 May 2019 05:31:45 -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: 6.96.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: CC: Julien Meuric , db3546@att.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <155861470519.3952.967456083891433902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 05:31:45 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Last Call: (PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 12:31:46 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the context of a Path Computation Element (PCE). This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), and is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes) as well as the stateless PCE. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-group/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-group/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Wed May 29 04:15:28 2019 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 2A859120119; Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Stephen Farrell via Datatracker To: Cc: pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability.all@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Farrell Message-ID: <155912851606.5505.8128704305266794780@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:16 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:15:16 -0000 Reviewer: Stephen Farrell Review result: Has Nits I'm not sure if this is a nit or not: The draft describes uses of PCE involving multiple domains. But the "domain" concept in this case seems to encompass both/either different administrative domains and/or different technology domains within a single administrative boundary. If it's realistic, wouldn't it be good give recommendations as to what to do at least when administrative boundaries are being crossed? (E.g. "use TLS" in that case.) Other than that the draft appears ready to me. From nobody Fri May 31 08:25:38 2019 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 93CB912023E for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 b1xTaHiAi7_j for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 8D7C11201D7 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 08:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VFPW4D012562 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:25:32 +0100 Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9402203C for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:25:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179292203B for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:25:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.172.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VFPUJ6018449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 16:25:31 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:25:29 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <058701d517c5$15653c90$402fb5b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdUXwpoZOnfgMfqGRZes8qF5Okyk7A== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 87.112.172.175 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24650.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.740-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--4.740-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24650.000 X-TMASE-Result: 10--4.740100-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: UjGGZgD0m5WqRCLwxK9uBLIGMNfiwa5Nh8Ytn75ClDMjRiu1AuxJTG4R Zq5BvfozuZ1mxD5I/8E7ANFGBaLgEHy4Z2N9oy6q8irf7wNB3ShieNvnhDpucBKAWnKBwBf/XNj tRHkBIpfq4CelNHtqN+8JPHN7y8LecB7/IGzaDP6I8hHRrWLqF6bsRRaTaNLR3o7JlDDSsKOjxY yRBa/qJX3mXSdV7KK41cdcbQkDmoBTptoDfp6JrNmzcdRxL+xwKrauXd3MZDXOvtqGnFI1fUPf6 /ueRa4Dw7/Xt5jfbYzm/bHe+Hlv6vOREOzvRTgfEp6wNz+nujQfmCPQtRKJqMk86bZaLUZ3YOr/ QSk/j786MUaRjFff969yxO5R6ODSiZDa+q6bAAVVQfzm8hzCuXYD/c2Xg/yR X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] PCEP Enhanced Errors X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 15:25:37 -0000 Hi, In Prague we had a discussion of draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors. My recollection is that we decided that there was no great hurry to push this document to completion, but that we didn't want to abandon it. Checking back with the minutes, there was an objective that we encourage authors of other documents to adhere to the error behaviours described in this document. We do this possibly by putting text on a wiki page, but first by discussing the guidelines on the mailing list. Looks like we were particularly interested in the behaviours when there are multiple PCEs present. We also discussed the possibilities for encouraging an "Error Handling" section in all our drafts, or at least for a section on "Error Handling in Multi-PCE Scenarios" when applicable. Would the authors of draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors like to take the lead on this? Thanks, Adrian From nobody Fri May 31 09:05:48 2019 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 9002B1201DA; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:05:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 DL1_65VyQkSN; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (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 C9D321201B8; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VG5YwS006631; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:05:35 +0100 Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE738221DB; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:05:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9982B221DA; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:05:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.172.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VG5XaA016982 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 May 2019 17:05:33 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Cc: , , "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:05:32 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <05af01d517ca$ad75d170$08617450$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdUXyVHA/gqCD0xeSZenmLCrLaWnqg== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 87.112.172.175 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24650.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.535-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--7.535-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24650.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.535100-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nj1B5fcjkJX13uu3X2zEvlyuZHgmvm5oRiPTMMc/MmnkaanwmLVtc1PW us3yxQNWF9v+Dr8BUC3lPWOZdnoFfL/KM1zCNPCMsgYw1+LBrk1lnkeRE0Y2A+Wwh8+n3bdJ9wx S5aBzZJ8A+g+3F4xfaJo1QcpzyJl6diXZ6euZKDc1aKcXY5M5DRfbPFE2GHrVpF5rzBQB1Dr1Ze b7KEkrKPKwHMm4cP6eFGou7UvUXjRn75igF4PDLMHsX2PFRfjyB5sxzt03wPgKfrbmG+DbUCbFA lzN5vLWmy1pYYi7ZRL1ksjBX8R+8EkjllSXrjtQOX/V8P8ail3InWAWA4yE6bRyGGICxm42UEhW y9W70AF5zdAzex5xZu635f0+ROXThWpKyjoKf/zCRFKEl5KPygKRtECesFt9ZrB1nNNDdhmUTGV AhB5EbQ== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] IETF last call on draft-ietf-inter-area-as-applicability X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:05:47 -0000 Hi, I saw only one comment on this document in IETF last call. Stephen Farrell's SecDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicabilit y-07-secdir-lc-farrell-2019-05-29/) asks a question which might or might not be a nit. > I'm not sure if this is a nit or not: > > The draft describes uses of PCE involving multiple domains. But the "domain" > concept in this case seems to encompass both/either different administrative > domains and/or different technology domains within a single administrative > boundary. If it's realistic, wouldn't it be good give recommendations as to what > to do at least when administrative boundaries are being crossed? (E.g. "use > TLS" in that case.) > > Other than that the draft appears ready to me. An email answering him would be appropriate. It is, of course, up to the AD whether she waits for the overdue OpsDir and GenART reviews. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Fri May 31 09:10:46 2019 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 E959A1201DA for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 wS-pfu58OfOR for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4921201B8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id e189so1379308oib.11 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=2pnnszNU16vZcLSEyv4JPE0dSnImsVGNrw3NqL58Zfg=; b=dRkIBXPxGEOObnq+u34cBjI2a5rKP/km3qMA/4GFZMUHSCEztK/Dad+8Po1uKgZLHG QZpfANBB1SKBbIahjDxej/ReR5zTqrZ86f75c4xp4Ymg9dcEtpcKe2jMRNExBFVf2/tW RJ0w6/F53XtJomurwpV7VSftscK0P8lwnS2O+sBE3HuVPpBqJY9NIOVVy2OqlQsGREeZ HrhiC321srKpySY4x+p8ijHSrKTwQ0tUmK+9KVXWDW57uoQsWrl27cxx5MKshqlXX4Qw jnCOP+ctv5MRKPeRnepA0aty0Kq8GbbJpZUreCD3Mm6/uq9GjwzF9RUkdXOnrLWPmODp YeTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2pnnszNU16vZcLSEyv4JPE0dSnImsVGNrw3NqL58Zfg=; b=d7dSOFxF+3DvMzJhgPbiueaU+7Vl3znBmy1zhkwvxH0kNKOwwM6r35YQ0+S7XLQB5X FE9I1kGb7nkoI3UI5qRxBoLIzPwIbJ/tbY5EO93lm7EY8y3DhrH4VKSD+IRbwne1tMIG PPfbStH9vUz8wezjtH4dZYAM60rXSY0eWC6/ft8pl8j8agNT0D8YNPVawxastXFq+eG6 Jo22mwMjB8thde9LN/x+5gTMdtwLAcBoZxPgh5pld8uIei5k4e+vi+2Bfr1Jy7yuEYyS Y0p3hVkyFKH2nrqh1jOBq8NFcsDe9NgUPtlmCIFbyH5MWPU25OX5v5XgKEzD2gQqL5u2 sE0w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVBC9cG2jTlV5thAZE1vSDpSFEvmDtf+CNVqLO8MwRafWv1aVCB FUo7+/zo1y5b9dgc4DkkXmtoNT2Zt8omIfUADgHyLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3eQDY21glYMHH0+OCgmBZxaPJHBLL46iNLti+NUWKUIu21wt8TzhbcvdgWXE0zoGDEU/mpM2pr3oH/vBDtzk= X-Received: by 2002:aca:d8c5:: with SMTP id p188mr6384484oig.6.1559319040868; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:10:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <05af01d517ca$ad75d170$08617450$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <05af01d517ca$ad75d170$08617450$@olddog.co.uk> Reply-To: daniel@olddog.co.uk From: Daniel King Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:10:29 +0100 Message-ID: To: Adrian Farrel Cc: draft-ietf-inter-area-as-applicability@ietf.org, PCE Working Group , pce-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085d510058a31411a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pce] IETF last call on draft-ietf-inter-area-as-applicability X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:10:45 -0000 --00000000000085d510058a31411a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, I think it's good to respond, so I will. At least this IESG member took the time to scan the ID, which the authors very much appreciate. BR, Dan. On Fri, 31 May 2019, 17:05 Adrian Farrel, wrote: > Hi, > > I saw only one comment on this document in IETF last call. > > Stephen Farrell's SecDir review > ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicabilit > y-07-secdir-lc-farrell-2019-05-29/ > ) > asks a question which might or might not > be a nit. > > > I'm not sure if this is a nit or not: > > > > The draft describes uses of PCE involving multiple domains. But the > "domain" > > concept in this case seems to encompass both/either different > administrative > > domains and/or different technology domains within a single > administrative > > boundary. If it's realistic, wouldn't it be good give recommendations as > to what > > to do at least when administrative boundaries are being crossed? (E.g. > "use > > TLS" in that case.) > > > > Other than that the draft appears ready to me. > > An email answering him would be appropriate. > > It is, of course, up to the AD whether she waits for the overdue OpsDir and > GenART reviews. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --00000000000085d510058a31411a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I think = it's good to respond, so I will. At least this IESG member took the tim= e to scan the ID, which the authors very much appreciate.

BR, Dan.

On Fri, 31 May 2019, 17:05 = Adrian Farrel, <adrian@olddog.co.= uk> wrote:
Hi,

I saw only one comment on this document in IETF last call.

Stephen Farrell's SecDir review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-inter= -area-as-applicabilit
y-07-secdir-lc-farrell-2019-05-29/) asks a question which might or migh= t not
be a nit.

> I'm not sure if this is a nit or not:
>
> The draft describes uses of PCE involving multiple domains.=C2=A0 But = the
"domain"
> concept in this case seems to encompass both/either different
administrative
> domains and/or different technology domains within a single administra= tive
> boundary. If it's realistic, wouldn't it be good give recommen= dations as
to what
> to do at least when administrative boundaries are being crossed? (E.g.=
"use
> TLS" in that case.)
>
> Other than that the draft appears ready to me.

An email answering him would be appropriate.

It is, of course, up to the AD whether she waits for the overdue OpsDir and=
GenART reviews.

Thanks,
Adrian



_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ie= tf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--00000000000085d510058a31411a-- From nobody Fri May 31 09:15:53 2019 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 B3321120261 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 FJKm1FkOrlYD for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (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 2A170120270 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VGFZkJ031864 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:35 +0100 Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1F622087 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 931B322079 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.172.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4VGFXhe005475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:34 +0100 Reply-To: From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:15:32 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting Message-ID: <05b001d517cc$13110f30$39332d90$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AdUXy40b842jQiLbSDy0/KnwUF35Hw== Content-Language: en-gb X-Originating-IP: 87.112.172.175 X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24650.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.824-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.824-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24650.001 X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.823800-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pjj54ow6YrbKGz6CdByMAvIq3+8DQd0opXln60SlGBvwJYZa/L83HRyH 7XXx/r8zaucT5XJRZzuMQMGLMzlJBZkroZMnoDefXK5keCa+bmg0AJe3B5qfBmNDqjXOO0Ye7XZ 5wYvlg+69SRpUa5kjk/eOIV74a7zvN6IarY2VLsWVUcz8XpiS9JH/lBD8KLjrr5aAJxq+KoYASQ zteVqh+HNfLtlpYpNCgzzl8VX4lWOwS+uqBJAE91kxnoxnQfVSEAImHgFYA97Dra5IbmQvVtbna unBsYgAwONBl6IkJItp0oDM6nL2luUrLWfRjDAyngIgpj8eDcC063Wh9WVqgoou5V2iHBf1sOzO ncrmCoP3FLeZXNZS4DjAdLIal4R68SDtCooUnwUgu5NFHZB5LAtn1/HhBIDdyamAn2hvQkE/1fq V2xzWkg== X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Implementing the new Implementation Policy X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:15:53 -0000 All, Obviously we have cut some slack for the documents that are further advanced. But a number of you have asked that your drafts be considered for WG last call, and a few are in the queue (see the lists on the wiki at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/). If you are hoping that your document will advance soon and if it doesn't address the implementation policy, your expectations may be sadly disappointed. New revisions of your drafts may be needed. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 09 May 2019 10:42 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Proposed Implementation Policy for PCE WG Hi WG, The poll is closed. We have an implementation policy set for the PCE WG - "All WG I-Ds are required to include an 'Implementation Status' Section (as per RFC7942) to document known existing or planned implementations. The chairs can make exceptions on a per-document basis." It is expected that all WG I-Ds requesting WG LC from now on (May 2019), must follow the above implementation policy. Reach out to the chairs in case an exception needs to be made for your document. Refer the wiki - https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/ for the policy as well as WG queues/status. Thanks! Dhruv, Julien & Adrian From nobody Fri May 31 10:53:43 2019 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 A4375120086; Fri, 31 May 2019 10:53:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Adrian Farrel via Datatracker To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: Adrian Farrel , adrian@olddog.co.uk, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org Message-ID: <155932522166.6463.16507114476601305417.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 10:53:41 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:53:42 -0000 Adrian Farrel has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/