gmane.ietf.pce

Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04

Oscar González de Dios — 2013-06-17T16:09:05

Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-04,

Please find bellow some comments regarding the PCEP P2MP Procedures  draft (sorry for sending them after the 2 weeks deadline for the LC comments):

- There is a strange page jump in the Terminology section. After "RFC5862]" and "ABR: " there is whole blank page…

- Terminology section: Blank line missing between Transit/branch domain and VSPT

- During the document there are 3 different acronyms "P2MP LSP" (section 3 ) "P2MP TE-LSP" (this one only in section 6) and "P2MP TE LSP" (the most common in the document). I suggest aligning the terminology and always use the same term to avoid confusion. . For "historical" reasons, "P2MP TE LSP", used in RFC 4461 seems appropriate. The definition of P2M2 TE LSP used in RFC 4661 may be cited too in the terminology section for completeness.

- In the terminology section the term "Boundary node (BN) is defined. However, later on, the term "border node" is also used, presumably as an synonym. I sugg

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Julien Meuric — 2013-06-17T15:43:41

Hi all.

As individual, I share the views expressed on the list: now that the I-D 
exists, it would be a pity to let it die. Contrary to elephants, human 
beings forget, so I would say: "go for an RFC!"

Chair hat on, I thinks that:
- RFC errata is out of scope: it is supposed to be used for document 
fixes, not updates;
- the choice between WG stream and individual streams remains in 
authors' hands (just note that, based on the feedback seen on the list, 
it would make sense to poll for WG adoption);
- I am not really comfortable with the option refered to as "publication 
of the individual I-D under the care of the WG" because "under the care 
of the WG" is not clear to me in that context;
- in any case, once published as an RFC, nothing prevents from 
submitting a volume 2 later ("PCE FAQ: the pachyderm returns [for 
peanuts]").

Regards,

Julien


On 06/12/2013 16:27, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Re: New version of the stateful pce applicabilitydraft-draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Ina Minei — 2013-06-14T21:50:01

Ravi,

Thank you for the careful review.

I think you bring up very good points on the opportunities active stateful PCE opens. In particular, the ability to simplify the routers and scale various components, simplify operations, etc.  Although this may not directly translate to a specific use case, I think there is value in discussing these issues in the next version of the draft and will work on adding specific text.

Thank you,

Ina

From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhangxian (Xian)
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 6:26 PM
To: Ravi Torvi; adrian< at >olddog.co.uk
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] New version of the stateful pce applicability draft - draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Hi, Ravi,

   Thank you very much for the useful suggestions. Please find my reply inline:

Regards,
Xian

From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org<mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org> [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Torvi
Sent: 2013年6月5日 0:32
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian< at >olddog.co.uk>

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Leeyoung — 2013-06-14T21:35:49

I agree with Fatai and Ina on that this draft might be worthy of the consideration for an informational RFC. 

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ina Minei
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:19 PM
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk; 'Ramon Casellas'; Fatai Zhang
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Adrian, 

I think there is value in this document, and it seems to fit well with an informational document. While I share your concern that some areas are rapidly changing, the process of progressing documents is not very fast either, so there is time and opportunity to update it :-)

Ina  

-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:45 AM
To: 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

[snip]

I suppose the question might be:
Could we get to a position

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Ina Minei — 2013-06-14T21:18:46

Adrian, 

I think there is value in this document, and it seems to fit well with an informational document. While I share your concern that some areas are rapidly changing, the process of progressing documents is not very fast either, so there is time and opportunity to update it :-)

Ina  


-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:45 AM
To: 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

[snip]

I suppose the question might be:
Could we get to a position where we have covered 90% of the questions that might arise in subsequent two years?
If so, then it would sound like an RFC might be useful. Just like we published the original framework RFC without keeping it alive for ever as a regularly-updated I-D.

But if we don't think we can get this stable (perhaps the field is expanding too
fast) then maybe a wiki? 
I don't like a wiki for this because it doesn't

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Fatai Zhang — 2013-06-14T03:13:11

Hi Adrian,

I prefer an informational RFC, where people can get much valuable information by reading this document quickly. 





Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 AM
To: 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Hi Ramon,

so

I suppose the question might be:
Could we get to a position where we have covered 90% of the questions that might
arise in subsequent two years?
If so, then it would sound like an RFC might be useful. Just like we published
the original framework RFC without keeping it alive for ever as a
regularly-updated I-D.

But if we don't think we can get this stable (perhaps the field is expanding too
fast) then maybe a wiki? 
I don't like a wiki for this because it doesn't register consensus or become
more widely visible.

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Adrian Farrel — 2013-06-13T16:45:26

Hi Ramon,

so

I suppose the question might be:
Could we get to a position where we have covered 90% of the questions that might
arise in subsequent two years?
If so, then it would sound like an RFC might be useful. Just like we published
the original framework RFC without keeping it alive for ever as a
regularly-updated I-D.

But if we don't think we can get this stable (perhaps the field is expanding too
fast) then maybe a wiki? 
I don't like a wiki for this because it doesn't register consensus or become
more widely visible.

Cheers,
Adrian

Re: Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Ramon Casellas — 2013-06-12T14:35:50

El 12/06/2013 16:27, Adrian Farrel escribió:
Dear Adrian, all,

Just thinking out loud, I don't have (yet) an opinion on this ... I find 
the draft useful, and I wouldn't want it to dissapear but, on the other 
hand, I also think of it as of something "alive" and which could, 
potentially, be updated more-or-less "regularly" depending on the 
working group progress. What would be in this case the best way to 
proceed? refresh it as I-D  -01,02,03... "ad infinitum", publish as RFC 
and then submit -bis -ter if need be, or update it via RFC errata?

thanks, R.

Next steps for draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Adrian Farrel — 2013-06-12T14:27:04

Hi chairs and working group,

Dan and I are wondering what to do with this draft.

It seems that a number of people have been reading it and have found it useful
or at least stimulating.

At the moment, it represents just the rambling thoughts of two individuals, so
my question is really whether the WG thinks this would be something that could
be usefully published as an RFC or should be judged to have served its purpose
now and allowed to die.

If published as an RFC there would be a number of ways to go forward: adoption
by the WG and subsequent edits; publication of the individual I-D under the care
of the WG (still review and edit, but faster); publication as an individual I-D
(under the care of an AD with review by the PCE working group).

We'd be interested to know what you think before we decide what action to
request for the document.

And, of course, any issues or thoughts on the document would be very welcome.

Thanks,
Adrian

WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10

Julien Meuric — 2013-06-12T08:08:49

Hi PCE'rs.

This message ignites a 2-week-long WG last call for 
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10. Please send your comments on the 
I-D to the PCE mailing list by Wednesday June 26.

Best regards,

JP & Julien

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

Julien Meuric — 2013-06-11T08:25:44

Hi PCE WG.

This last call ended last week, but I have not seen much comment from 
reviewers. You might still get a chance before IETF last call...

Chairs' review will be sent soon.

Regards,

Julien


Le 21/05/2013 10:42, Julien Meuric a écrit :

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08.txt

Kenichi Ogaki — 2013-06-10T17:03:00

Dear PCErs,

We uploaded the revised draft which addressed all the comments in IETF last call as follows.

https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=69807&tid=1370830337
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03141.html

Thanks,
Kenichi & co-authors

I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08.txt

2013-06-10T17:00:05

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           : Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE
Author(s)       : Tomohiro Otani
                          Kenichi Ogaki
                          Diego Caviglia
                          Fatai Zhang
                          Cyril Margaria
Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08.txt
Pages           : 12
Date            : 2013-06-10

Abstract:
   The initial effort of the PCE (Path computation element) WG is
   specifically focused on MPLS.  As a next step, this draft describes
   functional requirements for GMPLS application of PCE.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.iet

Re: Xian's comments on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce V2

Zhangxian (Xian — 2013-06-08T09:36:22

Hi, Ina,

  Thank you for your reply and update on the draft. Please see my further comments on some of the points inline, starting with “>Xian:”.

  I have additional comments on Version 4, will send them out in a separate email soon.

Regards,
Xian

PS:  I have added the PCE WG mailing list for the benefit of the working group.


From: Ina Minei [mailto:ina< at >juniper.net]
Sent: 2013年4月3日 4:04
To: Zhangxian (Xian); draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce< at >tools.ietf.org
Cc: Fatai Zhang; Leeyoung
Subject: RE: Xian's comments on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce

Xian,

Apologies for the delay in reply, please see responses inline below, look for ###.

From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:zhang.xian< at >huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:57 PM
To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce< at >tools.ietf.org
Cc: Fatai Zhang; Leeyoung
Subject:

Hi, Dear all,

   As promised during last IETF meeting, I have reviewed this draft. The following is my detailed suggestions with provided text for improving the d

Re: Supplementary question on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req

Adrian Farrel — 2013-06-07T12:38:47

Hello again,


I think that covers the protection use case for the Association object. And it
would be good to add it to the document.

There are many other uses of the object for associating LSPs with each other.
However, if those use cases are not showing up in PCE requirements at the
moment, that is fine and we do not need to discuss the object any further in the
document.

Thanks,
Adrian

FW: Supplementary question on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req

Adrian Farrel — 2013-06-07T12:34:31

Strangely I sent this email to CCAMP not PCE. 

Here is the thread for your information.

Adrian

Re: New version of the stateful pce applicability draft-draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Zhangxian (Xian — 2013-06-05T01:26:01

Hi, Ravi,

   Thank you very much for the useful suggestions. Please find my reply inline:

Regards,
Xian

From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Torvi
Sent: 2013年6月5日 0:32
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk
Cc: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] New version of the stateful pce applicability draft - draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Hi Ina & Authors,
Now that we have new WG charter, I think it is a good time to clarify applicability of PCE-Stateful.

Following are some of my observations that can be considered in your next revisions of draft:
1. We need to scope the PCE-Stateful applicability, i.e., clarify explicitly where vanilla PCE can be sufficient or PCE-Stateful could be an overkill.
    - Similarly, it would be nice to describe deployments of Passive Stateful PCE and  with Active Stateful PCE separately
I think draft describes goodness of Stateful well, however, it should provide guidelines for choosing right set of PCE-stateful features.
###: In thi

Re: New version of the stateful pce applicability draft -draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Ravi Torvi — 2013-06-04T16:31:44

Hi Ina & Authors,
Now that we have new WG charter, I think it is a good time to clarify
applicability of PCE-Stateful.

Following are some of my observations that can be considered in your next
revisions of draft:

1. We need to scope the PCE-Stateful applicability, i.e., clarify
explicitly where vanilla PCE can be sufficient or PCE-Stateful could be an
overkill.
    - Similarly, it would be nice to describe deployments of Passive
Stateful PCE and  with Active Stateful PCE separately

I think draft describes goodness of Stateful well, however, it should
provide guidelines for choosing right set of PCE-stateful features.

Few basic applications (I am not sure this draft covers them explicitly)
from PCC Scale point of view:

2. I think draft should describe on performance w/ PCE-Stateful
    i.e., How PCE Stateful helps in dynamic changes compared to NMS based.

3. One obvious applicability of Active PCE-Stateful would be : config
scaling. Operators do not have to maintain tons of LSP configuration on the
box.

Re: New version of the stateful pce applicability draft -draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Adrian Farrel — 2013-06-02T15:36:47

Ina, WG,
 
Pleased to see people thinking about applicability and use cases. IMHO, not
enough attention is paid to why we are doing things and how they will be used. 
 
Thanks for the work, and hope people will review it (especially service
providers!)
 
Adrian
 
From: pce-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ina Minei
Sent: 26 May 2013 22:52
To: pce< at >ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] New version of the stateful pce applicability draft -
draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04
 
A new version of the stateful pce applicability draft was posted yesterday. 
 
In the interest of making progress on this document, the authors would like to
solicit review, comments and discussion from the working group, before the next
IETF meeting. 
 
 
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04.txt
Status:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=d

Fwd: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-info-model, ospf-g709v3, signaling-g709v3

Lou Berger — 2013-05-31T16:19:55

Hello,
    The last call just started in CCAMP may be of interest to some in
this WG. Comments and discussion should be directed to the *CCAMP* WG
mailing list.

Much thanks,
Lou
CCAMP WG Co-Chair

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-info-model,
ospf-g709v3, signaling-g709v3
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:11:09 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger< at >labn.net>
To: CCAMP <ccamp< at >ietf.org>

This mail begins a 2nd two week working group last call on:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-12
(Informational)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-08
(Informational)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06
(Standards Track)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-09
(Standards Track)

This working group last call ends on June 16.  Comments should be
sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
technical basis for any comments.

Please note that we're

New version of the stateful pce applicability draft - draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Ina Minei — 2013-05-26T21:51:55

A new version of the stateful pce applicability draft was posted yesterday.

In the interest of making progress on this document, the authors would like to solicit review, comments and discussion from the working group, before the next IETF meeting.


URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04


Ina and Xian on behalf of all the authors