gmane.ietf.pce

Re: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Zafar Ali (zali — 2013-05-21T13:54:43

Julien, all


I am not aware of any IPR in this regard.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

Re: Last IPR Check ondraft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Dhruv Dhody — 2013-05-21T13:50:59

I am not aware of any other IPR, apart from the one already disclosed.

Dhruv


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric< at >orange.com>wrote:

Re: Milestones changed for pce WG

Julien Meuric — 2013-05-21T12:15:29

Dear WG,

Following the IESG's approval of our new charter text, we have updated 
our milestones. Note that the list should not be read as an exact list 
of documents, but rather as a guidelines describing our areas of work. 
Long term milestones will be updated as we move forward, according to 
the work progress.

Regards,

JP & Julien


P.S.: GMPLS requirements have just been sent to the IESG and a new LC 
has just been started, please review.


Le 21/05/2013 13:01, IETF Secretariat a écrit :

Milestones changed for pce WG

IETF Secretariat — 2013-05-21T11:01:55

Changed milestone "Submit the stateful PCE document(s) to the IESG",
set state to active from review, accepting new milestone.

URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pce/charter/

Re: Last IPR Check ondraft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Ramon Casellas — 2013-05-21T09:01:47

Julien, all

Other than https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2004/ I am not aware of any 
other IPR that applies
Thanks
R.

Last IPR Check ondraft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Julien Meuric — 2013-05-21T08:53:33

Dear authors of the aforementioned document,

Has all IPR that applies to 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures been disclosed in 
compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for 
more details)

Note that an associated IPR was disclosed in last February.

A response from each of you is expected.

Regards,

JP & Julien

WG Last Call ofdraft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Julien Meuric — 2013-05-21T08:42:43

Hi all.

This message ignites a two-week period to collect feedback on 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04. Please send your 
comments on the document to the PCE mailing list by Tuesday June 4, noon 
UTC.

Regards,

JP & Julien

Re: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07

Diego Caviglia — 2013-05-20T16:19:11

Hi all
         No IPR I'm aware of.

BR

Diego

WG Action: Rechartered Path Computation Element (pce)

The IESG — 2013-05-17T16:01:07

The Path Computation Element (pce) working group in the Routing Area of
the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please contact
the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Path Computation Element (pce)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active Working Group

Chairs:
  JP Vasseur <jpv< at >cisco.com>
  Julien Meuric <julien.meuric< at >orange.com>

Secretaries:
  Daniel King <daniel< at >olddog.co.uk>

Assigned Area Director:
  Adrian Farrel <adrian< at >olddog.co.uk>

Mailing list
  Address: pce< at >ietf.org
  To Subscribe: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/

Charter of Working Group:

  The PCE Working Group is chartered to specify the required protocols so
  as to enable a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based architecture for the
  computation of paths for MPLS and GMPLS Point to Point and Point to
  Multi-point Traffic Engineered LSPs.

  In this architecture path computation does not necessarily occur on the
  head-end (ingress)

Re: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00

Zafar Ali (zali — 2013-05-16T18:27:33

-----Original Message-----
From: zali <zali< at >cisco.com>
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:18 PM
To: "cyril.margaria< at >nsn.com" <cyril.margaria< at >nsn.com>,
"draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp< at >tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp< at >tools.ietf.org>, "pce< at >ietf.org"
<pce< at >ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00

Hi Margaria- 

Now that this is a chartered item, let's close on your comments.

We will update the document based on your comments received under this
thread. However, document restructuring also requires agreement from
authors/ drivers for the other drafts.

- (3) in above require merger of related text to
draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp.
- (1) requires merger to stateful PCE draft.

Let's use this email to solicit feedback for authors of these draft if
they agree to the merge. I am fine, either-way but have a feeling that
separate document may remain a reality.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

Re: Recharter approved

JP Vasseur (jvasseur — 2013-05-16T17:09:20

This is an excellent news Adrian, we will continue to progress especially on new items.

Thanks.

JP.

On May 16, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Recharter approved

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-16T17:07:41

Hi,

The IESG has just approved your recharter without sending it for external
review. The charter page will be updated in due course.

Thanks,
Adrian

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04.txt

Daniel King — 2013-05-15T08:27:56

Hi Co-Chairs, All,

Please find a new version of our draft. The update is to simply to
state the experimental intention of the draft and remove the IANA
request.

As discussed with the co-chairs, we (authors/contributors) feel the
document is ready for Last Call.

Br, Dan.


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:16 AM,  <internet-drafts< at >ietf.org> wrote:

I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04.txt

2013-05-15T07:16:49

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

Title           : PCE-based Computation Procedure To Compute Shortest Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Author(s)       : Quintin Zhao
                          Dhruv Dhody
                          Zafar Ali
                          Daniel King
                          Ramon Casellas
Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04.txt
Pages           : 21
Date            : 2013-05-15

Abstract:
   The ability to compute paths for constrained point-to-multipoint
   (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) across
   multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement for the
   deployment of P2MP services in MPLS and GMPLS networks.  The Path
   Computation Element (PCE) has been recognized as an appropriate
   technology for the determination of inter-doma

Re: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07

Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich — 2013-05-13T15:06:05

Hi Julien, 

I am not aware of any IPR to this draft.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria

Fwd: RE: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07

Julien Meuric — 2013-05-13T08:56:25

FYI

-------- Original message --------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 20:15:02 +0900
From: Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki< at >kddi.com>

Dear Julien,

Sorry for this late reply.

On behalf of KDDI and KDDI R&D Labs., I want to tell you we don't have any
IPR to be disclosed.

Thanks,
Kenichi

--
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI | IP Transport Network Development Dept.
+81-(0)80-5945-9138 | www.kddi.com

draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req?

Re: Proposed updated Charter

Yuji Kamite — 2013-05-13T01:23:33

Adrian,

Thank you for clarification.  I understood the intention well.

-Yuji

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian< at >olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:26 AM
To: Yuji Kamite（上手祐治）; pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Proposed updated Charter

Hi Yuji,

I think the answer to your question might be "yes" :-)

I don't believe that the charter should pin down the detailed requirements, and certainly not the protocol solutions.

The idea with this text was to make it clear that the PCC/PCE is not compelled to use the new path supplied by the PCE using PCEP. It is important for a stateful PCE to know which path the LSP is currently following, so there has to be some mechanism to get this information into the LSP-DB after a recommendation. Exactly how that is achieved and what the details are needs to be addressed in an Internet-Draft.

Does that work?

Cheers,
Adrian

From: Yuji Kamite [mailto:y.kamite< at >ntt.com]
Sent: 10 May 2013 04:14
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian< at >ol

Progressing PCEP Vendor Constraints

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-12T19:23:36

Hi,

No-one came back to me on the list or in private in the last (almost) three
weeks with any comments. 

Maybe everyone is happy/shy/vacationing.

Anyway, the authors have no more work in the queue for this I-D and believe it
is cooked.

Chairs, over to you.

Thanks,
Adrian

TLV
the

Re: Proposed updated Charter

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-11T22:26:17

Hi Yuji,
 
I think the answer to your question might be "yes" :-)
 
I don't believe that the charter should pin down the detailed requirements, and certainly not the protocol solutions.
 
The idea with this text was to make it clear that the PCC/PCE is not compelled to use the new path supplied by the PCE using PCEP. It is important for a stateful PCE to know which path the LSP is currently following, so there has to be some mechanism to get this information into the LSP-DB after a recommendation. Exactly how that is achieved and what the details are needs to be addressed in an Internet-Draft.
 
Does that work?
 
Cheers,
Adrian
 
From: Yuji Kamite [mailto:y.kamite< at >ntt.com] 
Sent: 10 May 2013 04:14
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk; pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Proposed updated Charter
 
Hi,
 
 
What does it mean by the second sentence “the case where the recommendation is not followed by the PCC/PCE?”
Does this simply mean the case where the current LSP is traversing different path from the one that was recomme

Re: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-07

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-11T22:24:13

Hi,

Just to close on an issue here...

Yes, the IPR disclosure was removed at the request of the discloser.
You can see this by clicking through the links from
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req/ to
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=d
raft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req and then to http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1869/

Cheers,
Adrian

I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-04.txt

2013-05-10T16:58:02

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

Title           : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
Author(s)       : Edward Crabbe
                          Jan Medved
                          Ina Minei
                          Robert Varga
Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-04.txt
Pages           : 54
Date            : 2013-05-10

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
   information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for
   synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.  This document
   describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control