From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Sep 2 08:45:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F7C21F84B8 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 08:45:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j+YlYMdLTEJZ for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 08:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C45021F84B2 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q82FjRMd018393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:45:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q82FjR25026358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:15:27 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:15:26 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:15:25 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2FrOx4GiE1JtSQSta1tThOYIWndgDdPscQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:45:33 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR.=20 Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 PM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segm= ent PW drafts PWE3ers, This begins a two-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be re-disclosed. This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > All, > > The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have recent= ly > been updated: > > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt > draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt > > Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been > relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in th= e > working group over many years. > > I think these are now ready for working group last call. > > Regards > Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Sep 2 18:28:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958D421F847D for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 18:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.174 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.825, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHyPVueLskQC for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 18:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F8321F847C for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q831SZnE029429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:28:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q831SY4P029652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:58:34 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:58:33 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: Yaakov Stein , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:58:32 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: AQHNhnqyaVQ14RJRm0mIj6N+s73mtZd30/JQ Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455F7E2@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455F7E2@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:28:40 -0000 Hi Yakov, Pls. refer my responses inline.=20 -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaa= kov Stein Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:43 PM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-= Segment PW drafts These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture into a = full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never define t= he routing protocols to use it. So I definitely support the concept. However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS requirements. Is this true ? IMO, for SS-PW case it should have been "T-PE" instead of "S-PE". Looks like a typo to me. In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but unle= ss I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of reserving BW = for a particular PW. Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of the = PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that (not to mention ma= king it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is implied in Figur= e 1. I think Figure 1 probably is just generalization of PW principles= without re-defining=20 in this doc on how PW works. A SS-PW indeed can reserve BW on a RSVP-TE Tun= nel thru CAC module. Thus the cumulative BW usage on a RSVP-TE Tunnel is ac= counted for all PWs (and other applications)that shares the tunnel. Further= , RSVP-TE tunnel may use Auto-BW etc to provide elasticity on whenever requ= ired. And what is the solution suggested here ? A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. How is this TLV used ? In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. Yes, that makes sense. But then When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the PSN= . =20 How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? This essentially means - at each S-PE select a PSN tunnel to next= -hop that meets=20 the criteria specified in MS-PW BW TLV. If no such tunnel is found then S-P= E would=20 release the mapping to sender with appropriate status code. And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve BW fo= r the PW ? Yes, a SS-PW can and implementations (at least I know one) have b= een doing so.=20 But in SS-PW case there is no need to signal the BW TLV since PSN tunnel di= rectly goes to=20 remote T-PE. However, in dynamic MS-PW, a T-PE may not know in priori that next-hop is a= S-PE or T-PE for the PW(since it is PW Routing Table at each hop that decides wheth= er matching=20 TAII route is local or remote). Thus even though the "dynamic" PW may end u= p as SS-PW, It is possible that the signaling initaited by a T-PE would indeed carry th= e BW TLV. Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting to sm= ell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the aroma = come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. Perhaps you might like to elaborate a bit more :-) on your expect= ations. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Sep 3 08:13:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462D221F867F for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJ+197taBnID for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BC921F8647 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q83FBH30013305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:13:36 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.36]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:13:18 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:13:17 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2J5qVfwm3jcdmdRUKClZyjD3Sdqg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0000 Yaakov, Pranjal, I do agree that the paragraph at the start of section 6.2.1 could be more clearly writhed. I think the issue is really manual configuration of the PW at each PE (whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a segmented PW without dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables explicit configuration (and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against the PSN tunnel for the next hop. As soon as we dynamically select the S-PEs along the path of an MS-PW, and automatically instantiate the Pws at each S-PE, we need a way to signal the BW requirements of the PW from the T-PE to the S-Pes along the PWs path.=20 I also agree that the first sentence about selecting the PSN tunnel could be expanded. In order to support the QoS requirements of a PW, a PSN tunnel must be selected that supports at least the CoS of the PW, and has sufficient BW available for the PW. I'll propose some revised text to the list shortly. Thanks, Matthew On 03/09/2012 02:28, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" wrote: >Hi Yakov, > Pls. refer my responses inline. > >-----Original Message----- >From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Yaakov Stein >Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:43 PM >To: pwe3@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic >Multi-Segment PW drafts > >These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture into >a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. >You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never define >the routing protocols to use it. > >So I definitely support the concept. > >However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. > >In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : > In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by > selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS > requirements. > >Is this true ? > > IMO, for SS-PW case it should have been "T-PE" instead of >"S-PE". >Looks like a typo to me. > >In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but >unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of >reserving BW for a particular PW. >Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of >the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that (not to >mention making it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is >implied in Figure 1. > > I think Figure 1 probably is just generalization of PW >principles without re-defining >in this doc on how PW works. A SS-PW indeed can reserve BW on a RSVP-TE >Tunnel thru CAC module. Thus the cumulative BW usage on a RSVP-TE Tunnel >is accounted for all PWs (and other applications)that shares the tunnel. >Further, RSVP-TE tunnel may use Auto-BW etc to provide elasticity on >whenever required. > >And what is the solution suggested here ? >A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. >How is this TLV used ? > In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a > T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine > an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. >Yes, that makes sense. But then > When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is > selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the >PSN. =20 >How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? > > This essentially means - at each S-PE select a PSN tunnel to >next-hop that meets >the criteria specified in MS-PW BW TLV. If no such tunnel is found then >S-PE would=20 >release the mapping to sender with appropriate status code. > >And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? >Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve BW >for the PW ? > > Yes, a SS-PW can and implementations (at least I know one) have >been doing so.=20 >But in SS-PW case there is no need to signal the BW TLV since PSN tunnel >directly goes to=20 >remote T-PE. > >However, in dynamic MS-PW, a T-PE may not know in priori that next-hop is >a S-PE or >T-PE for the PW(since it is PW Routing Table at each hop that decides >whether matching=20 >TAII route is local or remote). Thus even though the "dynamic" PW may end >up as SS-PW, >It is possible that the signaling initaited by a T-PE would indeed carry >the BW TLV. > > > >Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting to >smell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). >However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the >aroma come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. > > Perhaps you might like to elaborate a bit more :-) on your >expectations. > >Y(J)S > >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Sep 3 09:24:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B9D21F86B7 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.804, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nl+UQQ-7O4rt for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB88E21F86B6 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q83GOrka029092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:24:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q83GOq70025307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 21:54:52 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 21:54:51 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 21:54:49 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2J5qVfwm3jcdmdRUKClZyjD3SdqgACXWTg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:24:58 -0000 Hi Mathew, =20 "I think the issue is really manual configuration of the PW at each PE (whe= ther that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a segmented PW without dynam= ic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables explicit configuration (and hence= reservation) of the BW for a PW against the PSN tunnel for the next hop. " You have hit the right point. I think we generalized SS-PW as a whole in th= e dyn-ms-pw draft but actually the text was referring to the provisioning model in RFC 6073. Thanks, Pranjal =20 -----Original Message----- From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)=20 Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 8:13 AM To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Yaakov Stein; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-= Segment PW drafts Yaakov, Pranjal, I do agree that the paragraph at the start of section 6.2.1 could be more c= learly writhed. I think the issue is really manual configuration of the PW = at each PE (whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a segmented P= W without dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables explicit configura= tion (and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against the PSN tunnel for = the next hop. As soon as we dynamically select the S-PEs along the path of an MS-PW, and = automatically instantiate the Pws at each S-PE, we need a way to signal the= BW requirements of the PW from the T-PE to the S-Pes along the PWs path.=20 I also agree that the first sentence about selecting the PSN tunnel could b= e expanded. In order to support the QoS requirements of a PW, a PSN tunnel = must be selected that supports at least the CoS of the PW, and has sufficie= nt BW available for the PW. I'll propose some revised text to the list shortly. Thanks, Matthew On 03/09/2012 02:28, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" wrote: >Hi Yakov, > Pls. refer my responses inline. > >-----Original Message----- >From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 >Yaakov Stein >Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:43 PM >To: pwe3@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic=20 >Multi-Segment PW drafts > >These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture=20 >into a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. >You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never=20 >define the routing protocols to use it. > >So I definitely support the concept. > >However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. > >In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : > In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by > selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS > requirements. > >Is this true ? > > IMO, for SS-PW case it should have been "T-PE" instead of=20 >"S-PE". >Looks like a typo to me. > >In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but=20 >unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of=20 >reserving BW for a particular PW. >Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of=20 >the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that (not to=20 >mention making it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is=20 >implied in Figure 1. > > I think Figure 1 probably is just generalization of PW=20 >principles without re-defining in this doc on how PW works. A SS-PW=20 >indeed can reserve BW on a RSVP-TE Tunnel thru CAC module. Thus the=20 >cumulative BW usage on a RSVP-TE Tunnel is accounted for all PWs (and=20 >other applications)that shares the tunnel. >Further, RSVP-TE tunnel may use Auto-BW etc to provide elasticity on=20 >whenever required. > >And what is the solution suggested here ? >A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. >How is this TLV used ? > In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a > T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine > an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. >Yes, that makes sense. But then > When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is > selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the=20 >PSN. >How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? > > This essentially means - at each S-PE select a PSN tunnel to=20 >next-hop that meets the criteria specified in MS-PW BW TLV. If no such=20 >tunnel is found then S-PE would release the mapping to sender with=20 >appropriate status code. > >And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? >Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve=20 >BW for the PW ? > > Yes, a SS-PW can and implementations (at least I know one)=20 >have been doing so. >But in SS-PW case there is no need to signal the BW TLV since PSN=20 >tunnel directly goes to remote T-PE. > >However, in dynamic MS-PW, a T-PE may not know in priori that next-hop=20 >is a S-PE or T-PE for the PW(since it is PW Routing Table at each hop=20 >that decides whether matching TAII route is local or remote). Thus even=20 >though the "dynamic" PW may end up as SS-PW, It is possible that the=20 >signaling initaited by a T-PE would indeed carry the BW TLV. > > > >Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting=20 >to smell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). >However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the=20 >aroma come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. > > Perhaps you might like to elaborate a bit more :-) on your=20 >expectations. > >Y(J)S > >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From wlin@juniper.net Wed Sep 5 12:42:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41D121F865F for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIzJOcU4D08j for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3CC21F8650 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEerFDKMQHuf72tKDr4EUDCOrgrmO+EB@postini.com; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:42:13 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:40:31 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:40:31 -0400 From: Wen Lin To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:40:29 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2FrOuFkxCxO/QAR+GTfWThrTlevwF7fxjw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:42:14 -0000 When BGP is used for advertising PW address information, I think we shall s= pecify in the section 6.1.3 that it MUST have one or more route targets ass= ociated with it since the NRLI is for L2VPN with a an AFI equals to L2VPN(2= 5). Thanks, Wen From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Sep 5 14:24:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AF621F86F6; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.983 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vf-Viot3sEvj; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3B121F8650; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 11706B1E003; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:21:46 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120905212146.11706B1E003@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PWE3] RFC 6723 on Update of the Pseudowire Control-Word Negotiation Mechanism X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 21:24:32 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6723 Title: Update of the Pseudowire Control-Word Negotiation Mechanism Author: L. Jin, Ed., R. Key, Ed., S. Delord, T. Nadeau, S. Boutros Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: September 2012 Mailbox: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn, raymond.key@ieee.org, simon.delord@gmail.com, tnadeau@juniper.net, sboutros@cisco.com Pages: 9 Characters: 20307 Updates: RFC4447, RFC6073 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6723.txt The control-word negotiation mechanism specified in RFC 4447 has a problem when a PE (Provider Edge) changes the preference for the use of the control word from NOT PREFERRED to PREFERRED. This document updates RFC 4447 and RFC 6073 by adding the Label Request message to resolve this control-word negotiation issue for single-segment and multi-segment pseudowires. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From amalis@gmail.com Thu Sep 6 10:09:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D6821F8751 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jtl2BRenvt-f for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B2221F874F for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so3210485obb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:09:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SnNefl5qQJI8ce0Q/z2wPzmxPxh16T/Tl1QPclmbQIk=; b=qXBqH++OYoR2rksoE6Q8t123DIITdPQ+ESg6tF0pFiUrxTByJFwuDpJ/iJVSJt2p57 T6eArBelwLbPy3jZhCJv0+vrvrQ5cilMhBRg1UntY4ur/0+psc2cRZVFKWiE7XgLHeeV evTMgi37J79OOXDm+ejGYDKY1fObiu+mfT+mm6XKL50OCeng2tppuhupeEuL2527TYIQ ze1/owUbWnaqVy2OPlgtz060WAUQ60LwyaA2tvudu2Ed7+1ff+rThYTcmlC0vaiV7Rox hPs2GLCtOd6qmlM0Xh3UgvGVhWhx2pLnZECbVLxAzBe5pwUCKfTZWeHtqKEii3OV27f9 at9Q== Received: by 10.60.27.41 with SMTP id q9mr2980736oeg.80.1346951341753; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:09:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:08:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C68D@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C813@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5667D23392@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:08:40 -0400 Message-ID: To: Yaakov Stein , Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:09:03 -0000 Yaakov and Tom, Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes for option A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus on a slightly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it now reads "C =96 A and then B later on". Thanks, Andy and Matthew On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > PWE chairs, > > At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update > document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. > > Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a > "tutorial". > > To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes) an > underwhelming response. > > My own email to the list elicited only three responses. > > Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? > > (A =96 quick doc B =96 full doc C =96 A and then possibly B later on) > > (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A, an= d > Mach C in favor of B. > > I personally like C too.). > > > > Y(J)S > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu Sep 6 10:31:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E68B21F874A for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QlQwBtMSRo6I for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6C521F8748 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA48422826C9; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:31:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <09A7FBA1-0EBF-4A48-B5CC-1F2D8FD238E9@lucidvision.com> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C68D@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C813@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5667D23392@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> To: Andrew G. Malis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) Cc: Yaakov Stein , "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:31:12 -0000 So to be clear - because I had to re-re-re-read the options = listed below 3 times to get that straight in my head, we should start = with doing a quick document now. --Tom =20 On Sep 6, 2012:1:08 PM, at 1:08 PM, Andrew G. Malis = wrote: > Yaakov and Tom, >=20 > Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes > for option A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B > and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus > on a slightly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it > now reads "C =96 A and then B later on". >=20 > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew >=20 > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein = wrote: >> PWE chairs, >>=20 >> At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update >> document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. >>=20 >> Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a >> "tutorial". >>=20 >> To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the = minutes) an >> underwhelming response. >>=20 >> My own email to the list elicited only three responses. >>=20 >> Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? >>=20 >> (A =96 quick doc B =96 full doc C =96 A and then possibly B later = on) >>=20 >> (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave = A, and >> Mach C in favor of B. >>=20 >> I personally like C too.). >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Y(J)S >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>=20 >=20 From gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com Thu Sep 6 10:31:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1707621F874A for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAfBhaz5g0uc for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D0021F8748 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q86HYrl7004243; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:34:56 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.138]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:31:36 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Andrew G. Malis" , Yaakov Stein , Thomas Nadeau Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:31:34 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] VCCV2 Thread-Index: Ac2MUlTK2P8dZHJNQKu4CWNcIK9RMgAAuLYg Message-ID: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C68D@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90452C813@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5667D23392@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90455CBFA@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:31:47 -0000 Dear Andy, et al., Personally I don't see much difference between "then possibly B later on" a= nd "then B later on", as both versions suffer from unspecified timeline. Wh= at might be reasonable milestone for 5085bis? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:09 AM To: Yaakov Stein; Thomas Nadeau Cc: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org); pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 Yaakov and Tom, Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes for o= ption A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B and C. Sinc= e C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus on a slightly m= odified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it now reads "C - A an= d then B later on". Thanks, Andy and Matthew On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > PWE chairs, > > At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update=20 > document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. > > Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a=20 > "tutorial". > > To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes)=20 > an underwhelming response. > > My own email to the list elicited only three responses. > > Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? > > (A - quick doc B - full doc C - A and then possibly B later on) > > (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A,=20 > and Mach C in favor of B. > > I personally like C too.). > > > > Y(J)S > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From andrew.g.malis@verizon.com Thu Sep 6 10:34:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1309C21F875E for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1ZgASNe0vwC for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB10D21F875B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 17:34:46 +0000 From: "Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,380,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="330409549" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.188]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 17:34:46 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v22.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.158]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.188]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:34:46 -0400 To: Thomas Nadeau , Andrew G.Malis Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:34:41 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] VCCV2 Thread-Index: Ac2MVeebqVbVD3R9RjmCMy5t5Ea7sg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <09A7FBA1-0EBF-4A48-B5CC-1F2D8FD238E9@lucidvision.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:34:49 -0000 Tom, Yes, a quick doc now, followed by a full 5085bis. Cheers, Andy On 9/6/2012 13:31 , "Thomas Nadeau" wrote: So to be clear - because I had to re-re-re-read the options listed below 3 times to get that straight in my head, we should start with doing a quick document now. --Tom =20 On Sep 6, 2012:1:08 PM, at 1:08 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Yaakov and Tom, >=20 > Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes > for option A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B > and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus > on a slightly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it > now reads "C =AD A and then B later on". >=20 > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew >=20 > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: >> PWE chairs, >>=20 >> At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update >> document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. >>=20 >> Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a >> "tutorial". >>=20 >> To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes) >>an >> underwhelming response. >>=20 >> My own email to the list elicited only three responses. >>=20 >> Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? >>=20 >> (A =AD quick doc B =AD full doc C =AD A and then possibly B later on= ) >>=20 >> (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A, >>and >> Mach C in favor of B. >>=20 >> I personally like C too.). >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Y(J)S >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>=20 >=20 From andrew.g.malis@verizon.com Thu Sep 6 10:36:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A04E21F875B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLjPmCFBnIMc for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE3821F8759 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 17:36:23 +0000 From: "Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,380,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="330411215" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2012 17:36:23 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v22.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.158]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:36:23 -0400 To: Gregory Mirsky , "Andrew G. Malis" , Yaakov Stein , Thomas Nadeau Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:36:22 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] VCCV2 Thread-Index: Ac2MViGTx3UvENg6Q16sI6jfeAo7gw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" , "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:36:25 -0000 Greg, Matthew and I will have to talk with Yaakov and Tom to work that out. Regarding the milestone, while it's true that too many cooks spoil the broth, there's still a point where adding more cooks does help. So would you be willing to be an additional cook to help get these out faster? Thanks, Andy On 9/6/2012 13:31 , "Gregory Mirsky" wrote: Dear Andy, et al., Personally I don't see much difference between "then possibly B later on" and "then B later on", as both versions suffer from unspecified timeline. What might be reasonable milestone for 5085bis? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:09 AM To: Yaakov Stein; Thomas Nadeau Cc: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org); pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 Yaakov and Tom, Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes for option A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus on a slightly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it now reads "C - A and then B later on". Thanks, Andy and Matthew On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > PWE chairs, > > At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update > document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. > > Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a > "tutorial". > > To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes) > an underwhelming response. > > My own email to the list elicited only three responses. > > Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? > > (A - quick doc B - full doc C - A and then possibly B later on) > > (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A, > and Mach C in favor of B. > > I personally like C too.). > > > > Y(J)S > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com Thu Sep 6 10:40:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC5A21F8764 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:40:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qW0OZlgniwzs for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC9221F862B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q86Hhgd4006843; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:43:44 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.138]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:40:26 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Malis, Andrew G (Andy)" , "Andrew G. Malis" , Yaakov Stein , Thomas Nadeau Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:40:25 -0400 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] VCCV2 Thread-Index: Ac2MViGTx3UvENg6Q16sI6jfeAo7gwAACZyg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3 \(pwe3@ietf.org\)" , "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:40:33 -0000 Hi Andy, Yes, would be glad to juggle pans and pots. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Malis, Andrew G (Andy) [mailto:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:36 AM To: Gregory Mirsky; Andrew G. Malis; Yaakov Stein; Thomas Nadeau Cc: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org); pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Malis, Andrew G (Andy= ) Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 Greg, Matthew and I will have to talk with Yaakov and Tom to work that out. Regarding the milestone, while it's true that too many cooks spoil the brot= h, there's still a point where adding more cooks does help. So would you be= willing to be an additional cook to help get these out faster? Thanks, Andy On 9/6/2012 13:31 , "Gregory Mirsky" wrote: Dear Andy, et al., Personally I don't see much difference between "then possibly B later on" and "then B later on", as both versions suffer from unspecified timeline. What might be reasonable milestone for 5085bis? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:09 AM To: Yaakov Stein; Thomas Nadeau Cc: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org); pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2 Yaakov and Tom, Matthew and I just talked about the poll results. There were no votes for o= ption A, and the votes were pretty much split between options B and C. Since C is a superset of B, Matthew and I are calling consensus on a slight= ly modified C, with the word "possibly" removed, so that it now reads "C - = A and then B later on". Thanks, Andy and Matthew On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > PWE chairs, > > At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update=20 > document, or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired. > > Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a=20 > "tutorial". > > To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes)=20 > an underwhelming response. > > My own email to the list elicited only three responses. > > Could you ask for people to express their opinions ? > > (A - quick doc B - full doc C - A and then possibly B later on) > > (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A,=20 > and Mach C in favor of B. > > I personally like C too.). > > > > Y(J)S > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Sep 6 14:25:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3657321F8711 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Rb-RcVlKFfY for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA7921F86FF for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q86LPlW1025535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:25:47 +0200 Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.35) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:25:47 +0200 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.12.110]) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.35]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:25:43 -0400 From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: AQHNiSImYoGa7k/Pfk2WZsLMG+Zn6Zd6Rzng Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:25:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D093D74A6@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:25:51 -0000 Hi Andy, I am not aware of any IPR against the below drafts. Regards, Mustapha. -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 PM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segm= ent PW drafts PWE3ers, This begins a two-week working group last call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG, even if you don't have other comments. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be re-disclosed. This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > All, > > The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have recent= ly > been updated: > > draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt > draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt > > Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been > relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in th= e > working group over many years. > > I think these are now ready for working group last call. > > Regards > Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Tue Sep 11 13:10:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2FF21F8741; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id noB5TzThaMkl; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8FD21F86AF; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: lmartini@cisco.com, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk, florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120911201007.11445.73075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:10:07 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:10:07 -0000 Dear Luca Martini, Matthew Bocci, Florin Balus: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires" (draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-09-11 and has been posted on the = "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1879/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-i= etf- pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.""); The IETF Secretariat From amalis@gmail.com Tue Sep 11 14:30:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0A021F86B8 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKs52P-9v6Ga for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1624B21F86B3 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so1727563obb.31 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=6BGufR8bOLDEgKH32j4b1gCang9q9GVLR1L/aU/TiTc=; b=vPTIjijCv9Rh0tT3tdR6lo18OARybD5MHUHDS1AGQtfWaHkdXjGUMMTnxtZRC9CLdH i5g0PgWmTQ9u9ApKZrYLwZLz1daJ1rMn2ed5v0U66Xn+H2Oy3XUkSDXscrhS6T89rMiE NvBWt3yyWA9EJnaKDXtuI2JvkgwVYx3bHBB6/8B7g/SEP0OVC7WCl1VPx8eO9JHT0sLQ MoJd/WYdsQRy/JEf25u55/fIScXYDbl3plt3BFFHH/1G8lb/xDtw//IT1k48R8P9K1SE aec8hGCgQYEazM2qa2JfZ6kg1PXVeIiF3WL1syQEB1O8Fz+zNNYHGg3TRCVmYrvClZGO O5hA== Received: by 10.60.154.198 with SMTP id vq6mr20611858oeb.20.1347399006582; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:30:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: amalis@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:29:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120911201007.11445.73075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120911201007.11445.73075.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:29:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RdB3QgyvyqRfoTNujNdOArp4DBc Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:30:07 -0000 PWE3ers, I would like to provide a bit of background regarding this IPR disclosure. Back in 2005, MCI filed an IPR disclosure ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/566/ ) against draft-balus-mh-pw-control-protocol. At some point, draft-balus was merged with one or more other drafts to produce what is now draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw. However, it looks like draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw did not explicitly inherit that IPR disclosure. Of course, MCI is now a part of Verizon. During our own last call review of the draft, it was determined that the old disclosure for draft-balus still applies to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, and we have filed a new disclosure (see below) to make that explicit and searchable in the datatracker. Any questions about the disclosure should go to the points of contact in the disclosure rather than to me. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 To: lmartini@cisco.com, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk, florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Dear Luca Martini, Matthew Bocci, Florin Balus: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudowires" (draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-09-11 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1879/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf- pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.""); The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Sep 12 10:44:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752E521F869E for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:44:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2dRpaxoV6TDf for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E99321F869D for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8CHi8ap024804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:44:25 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.35]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:44:18 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:44:15 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2RDjuwSV+UZmcOSneoXIGAU+35ww== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:44:29 -0000 Pranjal, Thanks. Here's some proposed test to replace that first paragraph in Section 6.2.1: "In order to enable the QoS objectives for a PW to be met on a segment, a PSN tunnel=20 must be selected that can support at least the required class of service and that has sufficient bandwidth available. =20 PW QoS objectives can thus be met where the next hop for a PW segment is explicitly=20 configured at each PE, whether the PE is a T-PE or an S-PE in the case of a segmented=20 PW without dynamic path selection (as per RFC6073). In these cases, it is possible to explicitly configure the bandwidth required for a PW so that the T-PE or S-PE can reserve that bandwidth on the PSN tunnel. =20 Where dynamic path selection is used and the next-hop is therefore not explicitly=20 configured by the operator at the S-PE, a mechanism is required to signal the bandwidth for the PW from the T-PE to the S-PEs. This is accomplished by including an OPTIONAL PW Bandwidth TLV. The PW Bandwidth TLV is specified as follows:" Regards Matthew On 03/09/2012 17:24, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" wrote: >Hi Mathew, > =20 >"I think the issue is really manual configuration of the PW at each PE >(whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a segmented PW without >dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables explicit configuration >(and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against the PSN tunnel for the >next hop. " > >You have hit the right point. I think we generalized SS-PW as a whole in >the dyn-ms-pw draft but >actually the text was referring to the provisioning model in RFC 6073. > >Thanks, >Pranjal =20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 8:13 AM >To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Yaakov Stein; pwe3@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic >Multi-Segment PW drafts > >Yaakov, Pranjal, > >I do agree that the paragraph at the start of section 6.2.1 could be more >clearly writhed. I think the issue is really manual configuration of the >PW at each PE (whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a >segmented PW without dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables >explicit configuration (and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against >the PSN tunnel for the next hop. > >As soon as we dynamically select the S-PEs along the path of an MS-PW, >and automatically instantiate the Pws at each S-PE, we need a way to >signal the BW requirements of the PW from the T-PE to the S-Pes along the >PWs path.=20 > >I also agree that the first sentence about selecting the PSN tunnel could >be expanded. In order to support the QoS requirements of a PW, a PSN >tunnel must be selected that supports at least the CoS of the PW, and has >sufficient BW available for the PW. > >I'll propose some revised text to the list shortly. > >Thanks, > >Matthew > > >On 03/09/2012 02:28, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" > wrote: > >>Hi Yakov, >> Pls. refer my responses inline. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>Yaakov Stein >>Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:43 PM >>To: pwe3@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic >>Multi-Segment PW drafts >> >>These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture >>into a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. >>You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never >>define the routing protocols to use it. >> >>So I definitely support the concept. >> >>However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. >> >>In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : >> In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by >> selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS >> requirements. >> >>Is this true ? >> >> IMO, for SS-PW case it should have been "T-PE" instead of >>"S-PE". >>Looks like a typo to me. >> >>In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but >>unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of >>reserving BW for a particular PW. >>Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of >>the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that (not to >>mention making it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is >>implied in Figure 1. >> >> I think Figure 1 probably is just generalization of PW >>principles without re-defining in this doc on how PW works. A SS-PW >>indeed can reserve BW on a RSVP-TE Tunnel thru CAC module. Thus the >>cumulative BW usage on a RSVP-TE Tunnel is accounted for all PWs (and >>other applications)that shares the tunnel. >>Further, RSVP-TE tunnel may use Auto-BW etc to provide elasticity on >>whenever required. >> >>And what is the solution suggested here ? >>A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. >>How is this TLV used ? >> In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a >> T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine >> an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. >>Yes, that makes sense. But then >> When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is >> selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the >>PSN. >>How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? >> >> This essentially means - at each S-PE select a PSN tunnel to >>next-hop that meets the criteria specified in MS-PW BW TLV. If no such >>tunnel is found then S-PE would release the mapping to sender with >>appropriate status code. >> >>And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? >>Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve >>BW for the PW ? >> >> Yes, a SS-PW can and implementations (at least I know one) >>have been doing so. >>But in SS-PW case there is no need to signal the BW TLV since PSN >>tunnel directly goes to remote T-PE. >> >>However, in dynamic MS-PW, a T-PE may not know in priori that next-hop >>is a S-PE or T-PE for the PW(since it is PW Routing Table at each hop >>that decides whether matching TAII route is local or remote). Thus even >>though the "dynamic" PW may end up as SS-PW, It is possible that the >>signaling initaited by a T-PE would indeed carry the BW TLV. >> >> >> >>Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting >>to smell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). >>However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the >>aroma come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. >> >> Perhaps you might like to elaborate a bit more :-) on your >>expectations. >> >>Y(J)S >> >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Sep 12 10:46:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5E221F869E for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.923 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z8fwSxn5IQAn for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2074F21F869C for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q8CHki7L009244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:46:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q8CHkgig008922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:16:43 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:16:42 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" , Yaakov Stein , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:16:39 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts Thread-Index: Ac2RDjuwSV+UZmcOSneoXIGAU+35wwAADytQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:46:51 -0000 Hi Mathew, Looks good to me and I can't add more. Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:44 AM To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Yaakov Stein; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-= Segment PW drafts Pranjal, Thanks. Here's some proposed test to replace that first paragraph in Section 6.2.1: "In order to enable the QoS objectives for a PW to be met on a segment, a PSN tunnel=20 must be selected that can support at least the required class of service and that has sufficient bandwidth available. =20 PW QoS objectives can thus be met where the next hop for a PW segment is explicitly=20 configured at each PE, whether the PE is a T-PE or an S-PE in the case of a segmented=20 PW without dynamic path selection (as per RFC6073). In these cases, it is possible to explicitly configure the bandwidth required for a PW so that the T-PE or S-PE can reserve that bandwidth on the PSN tunnel. =20 Where dynamic path selection is used and the next-hop is therefore not explicitly=20 configured by the operator at the S-PE, a mechanism is required to signal the bandwidth for the PW from the T-PE to the S-PEs. This is accomplished by including an OPTIONAL PW Bandwidth TLV. The PW Bandwidth TLV is specified as follows:" Regards Matthew On 03/09/2012 17:24, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" wrote: >Hi Mathew, > =20 >"I think the issue is really manual configuration of the PW at each PE >(whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a segmented PW without >dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables explicit configuration >(and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against the PSN tunnel for the >next hop. " > >You have hit the right point. I think we generalized SS-PW as a whole in >the dyn-ms-pw draft but >actually the text was referring to the provisioning model in RFC 6073. > >Thanks, >Pranjal =20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 8:13 AM >To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Yaakov Stein; pwe3@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic >Multi-Segment PW drafts > >Yaakov, Pranjal, > >I do agree that the paragraph at the start of section 6.2.1 could be more >clearly writhed. I think the issue is really manual configuration of the >PW at each PE (whether that is a T-PE, or an S-PE in the case of a >segmented PW without dynamic path selection as in RFC 6073) enables >explicit configuration (and hence reservation) of the BW for a PW against >the PSN tunnel for the next hop. > >As soon as we dynamically select the S-PEs along the path of an MS-PW, >and automatically instantiate the Pws at each S-PE, we need a way to >signal the BW requirements of the PW from the T-PE to the S-Pes along the >PWs path.=20 > >I also agree that the first sentence about selecting the PSN tunnel could >be expanded. In order to support the QoS requirements of a PW, a PSN >tunnel must be selected that supports at least the CoS of the PW, and has >sufficient BW available for the PW. > >I'll propose some revised text to the list shortly. > >Thanks, > >Matthew > > >On 03/09/2012 02:28, "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" > wrote: > >>Hi Yakov, >> Pls. refer my responses inline. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>Yaakov Stein >>Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:43 PM >>To: pwe3@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic >>Multi-Segment PW drafts >> >>These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture >>into a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable. >>You can't define a network with addressing and switching and never >>define the routing protocols to use it. >> >>So I definitely support the concept. >> >>However, I am a bit confused about some aspects. >> >>In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement : >> In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by >> selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS >> requirements. >> >>Is this true ? >> >> IMO, for SS-PW case it should have been "T-PE" instead of >>"S-PE". >>Looks like a typo to me. >> >>In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel, but >>unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel there is no way of >>reserving BW for a particular PW. >>Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel, but the whole idea of >>the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that (not to >>mention making it redundant to use 2 labels) and that is not what is >>implied in Figure 1. >> >> I think Figure 1 probably is just generalization of PW >>principles without re-defining in this doc on how PW works. A SS-PW >>indeed can reserve BW on a RSVP-TE Tunnel thru CAC module. Thus the >>cumulative BW usage on a RSVP-TE Tunnel is accounted for all PWs (and >>other applications)that shares the tunnel. >>Further, RSVP-TE tunnel may use Auto-BW etc to provide elasticity on >>whenever required. >> >>And what is the solution suggested here ? >>A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction. >>How is this TLV used ? >> In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a >> T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine >> an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop. >>Yes, that makes sense. But then >> When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is >> selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the >>PSN. >>How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ? >> >> This essentially means - at each S-PE select a PSN tunnel to >>next-hop that meets the criteria specified in MS-PW BW TLV. If no such >>tunnel is found then S-PE would release the mapping to sender with >>appropriate status code. >> >>And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case? >>Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve >>BW for the PW ? >> >> Yes, a SS-PW can and implementations (at least I know one) >>have been doing so. >>But in SS-PW case there is no need to signal the BW TLV since PSN >>tunnel directly goes to remote T-PE. >> >>However, in dynamic MS-PW, a T-PE may not know in priori that next-hop >>is a S-PE or T-PE for the PW(since it is PW Routing Table at each hop >>that decides whether matching TAII route is local or remote). Thus even >>though the "dynamic" PW may end up as SS-PW, It is possible that the >>signaling initaited by a T-PE would indeed carry the BW TLV. >> >> >> >>Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft, and I am starting >>to smell something I remember from a while back (and I like the smell). >>However, if this is the way we are going, I would prefer to have the >>aroma come in through the front door, rather than the kitchen window. >> >> Perhaps you might like to elaborate a bit more :-) on your >>expectations. >> >>Y(J)S >> >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From ssalam@cisco.com Wed Sep 12 16:58:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1676321F85EF for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joZ5eJKxb+fw for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C84621F85C3 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:58:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1219; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347494331; x=1348703931; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=wLR9Kq1i0hC3eiec2taMrN9VNz2KyUq2swdDx+iJvog=; b=dc7ncqUQ9lPWWalt+ecFkxu6VFKPMq0+/uEeqSqS0yDaGaXHaF9yVcCP sL6u1QICQobim2vClA9bME9yoZ8+POOZc28JZgpn2GrczB6UacsB7qapk 64lKmT45ZO4jTPtlY+k9og9+X7TaZFpVAIcW73tNCkrMUqxABa/dPipaV k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPcgUVCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFgksjuHiBB4IXEBIBeAELAXQnBDWHawGaSoEooDeRUgOVX442gWmCZoIX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,413,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="121014497" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2012 23:58:51 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8CNwoR8002652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:58:50 -0500 From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNkUKO1yOOWT16HEOkRfMJc9mSJg== Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [161.44.210.181] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19180.000 x-tm-as-result: No--23.476500-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC766FC5BE37ssalamciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:52 -0000 --_000_CC766FC5BE37ssalamciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document. If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? Thanks Samer --_000_CC766FC5BE37ssalamciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft w= ould like to solicit your comments on the document. 
If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last cal= l?

Thanks
Samer  
--_000_CC766FC5BE37ssalamciscocom_-- From amalis@gmail.com Fri Sep 14 08:13:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B3D21F84F8 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSsIWgqMRqEk for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A783B21F84F1 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oagk14 with SMTP id k14so3250579oag.31 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=3O5ohtJgZsxuu7Dbu08xpYxD3QUCDGhpspEhwsHfXgE=; b=jk+1UDjpk3uNlwLtbiDhkaMKxr+/it8BnNqHsx/HodJKhVlxAnvogFrgn3dceEngol 4Bl8801RMhaFmOJhcmMLA/7rvmpl/7PPxlsSL0WdZsQCIP5fAoZNGJ3jNcdDLyHkB6g5 umR93R8B5Ue/VcsN8mMlIZEYtGja78Bg90JbwqT2q84f6dy4jSZ8J6vRG6kOnJHrDj0Y IuzbVGwEbsaD4uyFlCpqfRPKGMEJEqvbjmBZ3nue1w5zGJJpLihMfMx9+ruE5izkzp/3 AtF+f3Jmezz+KrLWtOiQ7bj0bXOnfv19/LA6Q5gbjdfWq8W87Czc1pJ+qZGr81dh38W4 bFlA== Received: by 10.60.6.6 with SMTP id w6mr3664809oew.129.1347635616334; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.96.177 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:13:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:13:15 -0400 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:13:37 -0000 There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. Thanks, Andy and Matthew From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Sep 14 09:24:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F3C21F851E for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:24:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALc9UyjmJla4 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E0B21F845F for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8EGNUom009197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:24:06 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:24:01 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:24:02 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Thread-Index: Ac2Si4gplDY6FJ5fTpikQcGHNgcHXAACcuqw Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D6702E1A6992D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:24:18 -0000 Support, not aware of IPR -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: vrijdag 14 september 2012 17:13 To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communiti= es-03 There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. Thanks, Andy and Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From sboutros@cisco.com Fri Sep 14 09:59:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E384221F851C for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NvlA2B6VV1qK for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD5721F851A for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2064; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347641982; x=1348851582; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=uCt59tiyExSo/CSjEnJwpIwD6GCl3Vng13HnS9ksC2c=; b=gsBbNLRhxPU46wkjX4tLvRH36D/kwGwTJhiuWDOvWR8gR7AlZRB/z/0Q GPgln7Vz7HWRKXXQwv399tsf5R7zGb2HmDFzoIkTH9R00H26OliAio6bu O6LXDA93P23chA6tAJDTx9GQtJ96myX38+TWW76cdE4KMjtsJfdGIrZg5 Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjYFAI9hU1CtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFgkuCdbY+gQeCIQEBBAEBAQ8BWwsQAgEIBAE6BycLFBECBA4FIodrC5tDoBcEixWGCGADlWGOOIFpgmaCFw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,423,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="118696533" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Sep 2012 16:59:42 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8EGxfZi022955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:59:41 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.212]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:59:41 -0500 From: "Sami Boutros (sboutros)" To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNkUKO1yOOWT16HEOkRfMJc9mSJpeKZfUA Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:59:41 +0000 Message-ID: <82F07A81-70BD-4558-BAC1-630F4C669090@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.19] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19182.004 x-tm-as-result: No--32.289300-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82F07A8170BD4558BAC1630F4C669090ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:59:43 -0000 --_000_82F07A8170BD4558BAC1630F4C669090ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. Thanks, Sami On Sep 12, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Samer Salam (ssalam) wrote: Hi, Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document. If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? Thanks Samer _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --_000_82F07A8170BD4558BAC1630F4C669090ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support.

Thanks,

Sami
On Sep 12, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Samer Salam (ssalam) wrote:

Hi,

Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft w= ould like to solicit your comments on the document. 
If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last cal= l?

Thanks
Samer  
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--_000_82F07A8170BD4558BAC1630F4C669090ciscocom_-- From mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Sep 14 09:59:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9BD21F851E for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PMd7wf4AoYBN for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8443F21F852C for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8EGxTPt030909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:59:52 +0200 Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:59:46 +0200 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.12.110]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:59:27 -0400 From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Thread-Index: AQHNkoutSFgxJ3B6fUOf6n8A9kR5Y5eKDnmw Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:59:25 +0000 Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D093DC0BE@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:59:57 -0000 Hi Andy, I support this becoming a WG draft. I am not aware of any IPR on this. Regards, Mustapha. -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:13 AM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communiti= es-03 There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. Thanks, Andy and Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Sep 14 15:01:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7DB21F84A7; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSwfTtC0oUQI; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BAE21F8443; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120914220116.3300.58142.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:01:16 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-08.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:01:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working= Group of the IETF. Title : Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit Author(s) : Praveen Muley Mustapha Aissaoui Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-08.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2012-09-14 Abstract: This document describes a mechanism for signaling the active and standby status of redundant pseudowires (PWs) between their termination points. A set of redundant PWs is configured between provider edge (PE) nodes in single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW) applications, or between terminating provider edge (T-PE) nodes in multi-segment pseudowire (MS-PW) applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW to use for forwarding PW packets to one another, a new status bit is defined. This bit indicates a preferential forwarding status with a value of Active or Standby for each PW in a redundant set. In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE nodes to coordinate a switchover operation of the PW. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Sep 17 11:23:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2759021F86E1 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01OnaaH6ypEI for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5941621F8691 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q8HINh2i014916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:23:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q8HINgag007400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:53:42 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:53:42 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:53:41 +0530 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Thread-Index: Ac2Si4iP4dMXi4yjRVSZ15RxC/vUCQCdfLEg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:23:49 -0000 Hi Andy, I support as co-author of the draft. I am not aware of any IPR o= n this. Thanks, Pranjal=20 -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of And= rew G. Malis Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:13 AM To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communiti= es-03 There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful funct= ionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for the adoptio= n of https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a = working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you support = adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are helpful for the W= G. We would like to see a good show of support on this one rather than just= a few emails. Indications that the draft has actually been read would also= be greatly appreciated. Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies t= o this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF= IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to thi= s email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will no= t be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contri= butor. If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or con= tributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR t= hat has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. Thanks, Andy and Matthew _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Sep 18 04:40:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3E821E80BB for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:40:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.717, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0AgOF2BYDWk0 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896FC21E80A7 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8IBdxJR003689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:40:38 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.35]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:40:27 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:40:22 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Thread-Index: Ac2VkmYUkP+7COTlTEqbHSDbZ1ZhgA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:40:43 -0000 Andy, I support adoption of this draft. I agree with you that this specifies useful functionality, enabling better policy control for dynamic multi-segment pseudowires in particular. Best regards Matthew On 14/09/2012 16:13, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: >There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the >list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful >functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for >the adoption of >https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a >working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you >support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are >helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on >this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has >actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. > >Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in >compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for >more details). > >If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond >to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The >draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each >author and contributor. > >If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author >or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware >of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF >rules. > >This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. > >Thanks, >Andy and Matthew >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Sep 18 04:42:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D5721F84F3 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:42:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.634 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.615, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3UKq92FVQIj8 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2385A21F844E for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8IBgNiJ004874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:42:52 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.35]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:42:23 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" , "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:42:20 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 Thread-Index: Ac2VkqqzPvhSl9kkS2y02UFUIjYyNw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:42:57 -0000 I am also not aware of any IPR. Matthew On 18/09/2012 12:40, "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" wrote: > > >Andy, > >I support adoption of this draft. > >I agree with you that this specifies useful functionality, enabling better >policy control for dynamic multi-segment pseudowires in particular. > >Best regards > >Matthew > >On 14/09/2012 16:13, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote: > >>There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the >>list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful >>functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for >>the adoption of >>https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a >>working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you >>support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are >>helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on >>this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has >>actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. >> >>Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >>applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in >>compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for >>more details). >> >>If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond >>to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The >>draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each >>author and contributor. >> >>If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author >>or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware >>of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF >>rules. >> >>This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. >> >>Thanks, >>Andy and Matthew >>_______________________________________________ >>pwe3 mailing list >>pwe3@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From paul.kwok@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Sep 17 16:36:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A86B21E80A3 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBePWDXOAlzk for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD2F21E80A2 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q8HNa4iT004487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:36:04 +0200 Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.35) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:36:04 +0200 Received: from [172.22.187.58] (135.5.27.18) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:36:01 -0400 Message-ID: <5057B3E1.1070307@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:36:01 -0700 From: Paul Kwok Organization: Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.5.27.18] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:01:56 -0700 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:36:06 -0000 Hi Andy, I support as co-author of the draft. I am not aware of any IPR on this. Thanks, Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:13 AM > To: pwe3@ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 > > There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the > list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful > functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for > the adoption of > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a > working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you > support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are > helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on > this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has > actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. > > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for > more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The > draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each > author and contributor. > > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF > rules. > > This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. > > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From lizho.jin@gmail.com Wed Sep 19 08:17:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3429921F8752 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fKGqLsB-qk1e for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC5C21F8750 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so1926989iec.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jnwM6ypkDCLAURzXhX32aZpsm4gz3qG3UGVfjCLfOu0=; b=SbADuCVu62B333nryYaWHoW8HEIP8DAmzn0uFrEUUy7/tZuyBj0xQRf4qmgq2xhVxY vuGg7FVRTx4wbGKFr53fKLhCVJIGX2oFkDdC1xU7hl6VWsgvFB1zGc137jioXauy/e1S 5/obP0Y8bODavD7GXId0tYJdkQWsq+eLs4QHyRWv2HS7ZuEuQon8ow6ihth9eI+8GOHN tUWBUdjWYOZ94skIDv8fJvY9LRmiYflP9fzTCC73dJMZzNvJQT+J6iGOKxyHSnmBGUzM rSEKGnVm7e0n4GLd3r3lmZR9onAuHCgJDJFlMlp6Qx45SU7E0LLTSdk+yEUlWo/aHW7g MCwg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.178.97 with SMTP id cx1mr3266369igc.48.1348067831921; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.15.201 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:17:11 +0800 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin To: Samer Salam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6478d9413af704ca0f80bd Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:17:13 -0000 --e89a8f6478d9413af704ca0f80bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Samer, I reviewed this draft before and also provided some comments that were already addressed. I support the draft to be last call. Regards Lizhong > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 +0000 > From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" > To: "pwe3@ietf.org" > Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would > like to solicit your comments on the document. > If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? > > Thanks > Samer > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120912/371449d6/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ --e89a8f6478d9413af704ca0f80bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Samer,
I reviewed this draft b= efore and also provided some comments that were already addressed. I suppor= t the draft to be last call.

Regards
Liz= hong
=A0
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 +0000
From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
Message-ID: <CC766FC= 5.BE37%ssalam@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Hi,

Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document.
If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call?
Thanks
Samer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail= -archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120912/371449d6/attachment.htm>

------------------------------
--e89a8f6478d9413af704ca0f80bd-- From sajassi@cisco.com Thu Sep 20 11:36:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FBF21F874C for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vzbgal0i+2pv for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0E421F8749 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:36:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3361; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348166183; x=1349375783; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=8EoZyFuG2h2+bYSzvzzJ0gyWJglCkwHycHkrgcZQmic=; b=N5glKUo9493ZWiHYCy2QMyaIoL/vzHkjTQ1IKsdKVafpkRbnzjXuAKhT 3qz7AF+ADiz6Y4ZR+uaUib8AKhpTr73WifztWYW9q0zQfVsZ8WB0x9uVI mSCjhA9e9wru7oAbKikKxjwPCZynT5Xu+lxf2bNWamxC+Bi3xCLif8iZ7 w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAINgW1CtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFgksjujyBCIIgAQIEEgEKXBIBCAQNAwECKDkUCQgCBA4FCRmHYQEKmg6gFIscGoYoA5VkjjiBaYJngWM0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,455,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="123665242" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2012 18:36:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8KIaNjf030726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:36:23 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:36:22 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNlnoV6fQjfylX7kGo+3TVjDPI7ZeTbyuA Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:36:21 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.131] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19194.004 x-tm-as-result: No--40.137400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC80AF7C1917Fsajassiciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:36:24 -0000 --_000_CC80AF7C1917Fsajassiciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a pretty matured draft and I (as a co-author) support the WG last c= all for it. -Ali ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 +0000 From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" > To: "pwe3@ietf.org" > Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Hi, Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document. If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? Thanks Samer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ --_000_CC80AF7C1917Fsajassiciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <04C811E6980E9D478AD61A50EF8F0DEC@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is a pretty matured draft and I (as a co-author) support the WG l= ast call for it.

-Ali
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:58:50 +0000
From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
Message-ID: <CC766FC= 5.BE37%ssalam@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Hi,

Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document.
If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call?
Thanks
Samer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail= -archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120912/371449d6/attachment.htm>

------------------------------
 --_000_CC80AF7C1917Fsajassiciscocom_-- From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Sep 24 09:27:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85D921F87E0 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:27:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IelD6oH214f for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA1921F86B4 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Sep 2012 17:33:48 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:27:01 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNkUKO1yOOWT16HEOkRfMJc9mSJpeZvwNQ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:27:01 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18B@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.17.140.37] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18BEXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A020209.506089D7.0034,ss=1,fgs=0 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:27:09 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18BEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support progressing to WG LC. However, I don't recall having to support a WG LC in this way, and I hope that it won't become SOP to first support a LC, and then support= the draft in LC. Then perhaps we would have to support asking for support to progress to LC, and it's turtles all the way down. Y(J)S From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam= er Salam (ssalam) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:59 To: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi, Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would = like to solicit your comments on the document. If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? Thanks Samer --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18BEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support progressing to WG LC.

 

However, I don't recall having to support a WG LC in this wa= y,

and I hope that it won't become SOP to first support a LC, a= nd then support the draft in LC.

Then perhaps we would have to support asking for support to = progress to LC,

and it's turtles all the way down.

 

Y(J)S

 

From: pwe3-bou= nces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:59
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09=

 

Hi,

 

Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above= draft would like to solicit your comments on the document. 

If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG = last call?

 

Thanks

Samer  

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18BEXRAD5adradcoil_-- From amalis@gmail.com Mon Sep 24 10:14:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949BB21F8829 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVe2xsHRjxhm for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB96821F8821 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6326811obb.31 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=nD/FDUCSwws7NOK9RlmcR8UQURNim+UxPGOuiDYXvmw=; b=Z777ZYEcZVNMZuTf36fXTdBf936ToCRWWlxmPVXE9BnoG9BLt0zWpjmVd/O4XOBFVv MzS61o4G46nRa6C97l8sIFyMpTsibelMVF+A1uGDEyMIfv8P9eegxtNmjZdGq0juVekx MaO8jVlFtq3JH7VvTxcMvy4nwqOXnv/0KS4bLiPKXLfygJthZ/5dsxe9lyAFSfrVx3L4 KhF7vhdky4z6IgVMKfp4xhfMtUIbLHQMKJR8gmFQ4VJWaLEUIbkLn7fxJcNdzUjMzvFW 6vino5ZmS12G1BT+LfiVcyiAsbSOQX1zYU8jMgcodh+Nq5T2rqo3XmrDBva/IIQZYqtk 2SZw== Received: by 10.182.157.44 with SMTP id wj12mr6121044obb.41.1348506874265; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.28.228 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18B@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90456F18B@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:14:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Yaakov Stein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:14:35 -0000 Yaakov, Samer asked for WG last call, but there hasn't been much discussion of this draft on the list, so Matthew and I asked him to solicit comments on the list first so that we could have some assurance that it's been read by more than just the authors. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > I support progressing to WG LC. > > > > However, I don't recall having to support a WG LC in this way, > > and I hope that it won't become SOP to first support a LC, and then support > the draft in LC. > > Then perhaps we would have to support asking for support to progress to LC, > > and it's turtles all the way down. > > > > Y(J)S > > > > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Samer Salam (ssalam) > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:59 > To: pwe3@ietf.org > > > Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 > > > > Hi, > > > > Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would > like to solicit your comments on the document. > > If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call? > > > > Thanks > > Samer > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From lufang@cisco.com Wed Sep 26 22:19:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FC421F8690 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:19:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwC0owSzYWbB for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C186621F867E for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:19:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18613; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348723150; x=1349932750; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=XYGgB+cLFcMb9Ie9fm92Q+HTRHTHFTIQt3a95P4H2kw=; b=ZNJa1aQHbA57ANDmWhfb9xeVFkoTHV0SywoiFUlkDcQV3WkuQ4iNolB0 DC0rnvclFr/+55YYOvDmpJNoink4OkqCMxNus0A+ZAlRVqW5O/wo6uK5m wYeMyOowwM1/hMUaPCaGOo+XUtFL+/acv8WLNnG/Hxaa99HrdGLVxGrOC U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAETfY1CtJXG//2dsb2JhbABFgku7QoEIgiABAQEDAQEBAQ8BGkELEgEIEQMBAQEBChYHLgsUCQkBBA4FCBqHUQMJBguXVJYrDYlUixiFPWADln6NLYFpgmeCFw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,493,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="125790676" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2012 05:19:09 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8R5J9Xv027689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:19:09 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.155]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:19:08 -0500 From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" To: "amalis@gmail.com" Thread-Topic: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: Ac2cb510FZcxPS0vQwOCdKYfm7vLvA== Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:19:07 +0000 Message-ID: <0DB8F45437AB844CBB5102F807A0AD930F4F9E50@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.82.238.200] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19214.004 x-tm-as-result: No--42.879600-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DB8F45437AB844CBB5102F807A0AD930F4F9E50xmbrcdx03ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Yaakov Stein , pwe3 Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:19:15 -0000 --_000_0DB8F45437AB844CBB5102F807A0AD930F4F9E50xmbrcdx03ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andy, Thanks for the explanation. I support for progressing the draft to WG last call as well. Luyuan >To: Yaakov Stein > >Subject: Re: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 >From: "Andrew G. Malis" > >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:14:14 -0400 >Cc: "pwe3 at ietf.org" > >Yaakov, > >Samer asked for WG last call, but there hasn't been much discussion of >this draft on the list, so Matthew and I asked him to solicit comments >on the list first so that we could have some assurance that it's been >read by more than just the authors. > >Cheers, >Andy > >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Yaakov Stein wro= te: >> I support progressing to WG LC. >> >> However, I don't recall having to support a WG LC in this way, >> >> and I hope that it won't become SOP to first support a LC, and then supp= ort >> the draft in LC. >> >> Then perhaps we would have to support asking for support to progress to = LC, >> >> and it's turtles all the way down. >> >> Y(J)S >> >>> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of >>> Samer Salam (ssalam) >>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 02:59 >>> To: pwe3 at ietf.org >>> Subject: [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Based on feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft wo= uld >>> like to solicit your comments on the document. >>> If people have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call= ? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Samer >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pwe3 mailing list >>> pwe3 at ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>> --_000_0DB8F45437AB844CBB5102F807A0AD930F4F9E50xmbrcdx03ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Andy,

 

Thanks for the explan= ation.

I support for progres= sing the draft to WG last call as well.

 

Luyuan

 

>To: Yaakov Stein <yaako= v_s at rad.com>

>Subject: Re: [PWE3] S= oliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

>From: "Andrew= G. Malis" <amalis at gmail.com>

>Date: Mon, 24 Sep = 2012 13:14:14 -0400

>Cc: "pwe3 at ietf.org" <pwe3 at ietf.org>

 

>Yaakov,

> =

>Samer asked for W= G last call, but there hasn't been much discussion of

>this draft on the= list, so Matthew and I asked him to solicit comments

>on the list first= so that we could have some assurance that it's been

>read by more than= just the authors.

> =

>Cheers,

>Andy

> =

>> On Mon, Sep = 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:<= /o:p>

>> I support pr= ogressing to WG LC.

>> 

>> However, I d= on't recall having to support a WG LC in this way,

>> 

>> and I hope t= hat it won't become SOP to first support a LC, and then support<= /span>

>> the draft in= LC.

>> 

>> Then perhaps= we would have to support asking for support to progress to LC,<= /span>

>> 

>> and it's tur= tles all the way down.

>> 

>> Y(J)S

>> 

>>> From: pw= e3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of

>>> Samer Sa= lam (ssalam)

>>> Sent: Th= ursday, September 13, 2012 02:59

>>> To: pwe3= at ietf.org

>>> Subject:= [PWE3] Soliciting Comments for draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

>>>&nbs= p;

>>> Hi,=

>>>&nbs= p;

>>> Based on= feedback from the WG chairs, the authors of the above draft would

>>> like to = solicit your comments on the document.

>>> If peopl= e have read it, would you support progressing to a WG last call?=

>>>&nbs= p;

>>> Thanks

>>> Samer

>>>&nbs= p;

>>>&nbs= p;

>>> ________= _______________________________________

>>> pwe3 mai= ling list

>>> pwe3 at = ietf.org

>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3<= /span>

>>> 

--_000_0DB8F45437AB844CBB5102F807A0AD930F4F9E50xmbrcdx03ciscoc_-- From amalis@gmail.com Fri Sep 28 09:45:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9626421F8570 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXTTbRDV1D9U for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BEC21F855E for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obqv19 with SMTP id v19so3764577obq.31 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=H3x0oceZwbWDLzaYp2r27F/KM749oo/Y5CdFTbiwhKQ=; b=xyp/mkE37OvBiXpJrIdV6Q0Oqqh0S+8ehU+VrRinQomNr0zzWDuGLa34O5uVtA/hJT MSz9jdEN12usy4qYmvE1nqKiTQSPWNftMg1LW/TXhunNZb594OX28WujLF+KvsNsczow /L6Wm5o6AlrfJqc02EkCjLU1LCM1NxT4vfxt2t2dSYyQq15A3hWnWUpB8IlIGvPJ2WCb EoemWsKFYy7JOvZUotGGjafqR23tCFcRbHPvqv2T5HsQRJ2r5dt/uZzfpHVaGxQsuQQd EhCbqd6mmgzMISuk3sk3/ruAIJLPl6uDdBIBO21ocagZ0D0siDGntFXJat9KwnVpPIcJ 6Bjw== Received: by 10.60.5.197 with SMTP id u5mr6389866oeu.129.1348850753518; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.150.232 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:45:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:45:33 -0400 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f923b9a04bcb304cac5ca34 Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG adoption and IPR polls for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:45:54 -0000 --e89a8f923b9a04bcb304cac5ca34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All, Although today was nominally the end date for this adoption poll, we're still waiting to hear from one of the authors regarding IPR. Also, we only received two non-author responses to this poll, and both of those are from the same organization as the authors. So we really need to hear more support from the working group as a whole. Thanks, Andy On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the > list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful > functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for > the adoption of > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities-03.txt as a > working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you > support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are > helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on > this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has > actually been read would also be greatly appreciated. > > Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that > applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for > more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The > draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each > author and contributor. > > If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware > of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF > rules. > > This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September. > > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > --e89a8f923b9a04bcb304cac5ca34 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All,

Although today was nominally the end date for this adoption pol= l, we're still waiting to hear from one of the authors regarding IPR. A= lso, we only received two non-author responses to this poll, and both of th= ose are from the same organization as the authors. So we really need to hea= r more support from the working group as a whole.

Thanks,
Andy

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 = at 11:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <amalis@gmail.com> wrote:
There's been interest expressed (more so at the meetings than on the list) for draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communities, and it does specify useful
functionality. As a result, the chairs would like to poll the WG for
the adoption of
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pkwok-pwe3-pw-communiti= es-03.txt as a
working group draft. Please reply to this email whether or not you
support adoption of this draft. Reasons are not required, but are
helpful for the WG. We would like to see a good show of support on
this one rather than just a few emails. Indications that the draft has
actually been read would also be greatly appreciated.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each
author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

This will be a two-week poll, ending 28 September.

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

--e89a8f923b9a04bcb304cac5ca34--