However it's not prime Yours Irrespectively,
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:42 AM > To: Dhruv Dhody; [email protected]; 'Ramon Casellas'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry > > Hi Adrian, > > 8 sounds like a good number. > > Cheers, > Jeff > > On 6/16/16, 9:25 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected] on > behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Adrian, > > > >> How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I > >> can pre-emptively compromise :-) > > > >I can work with 8 :) > > > >Regards, > >Dhruv > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: 15 June 2016 23:52 > >> To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>; 'Ramon Casellas' > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP registry > >> > >> To Ramon's point... > >> > >> > We do need to reach a consensus on what range to set aside. > >> > >> Yes, we do. Both to satisfy ourselves and to get past the current > >> IESG (not the one that approved the MANET registry). > >> > >> I think you captured the essence. There should be enough code points > >> to run the parallel experiments that need to be run together, but not > >> so many that experiments that don't need to be run at the same time > >> can grab values and expect to keep them. Essentially, before running > >> an experiment all participants should get together to agree what > >> values to use, and then when the experiment is over they should > >> consider the values to have no meaning (until the next and completely > >> different > experiment). > >> > >> As far as I can see, 30 messages looks like a complete orgy of > >> experimentation! > >> Four times more active experimentation in one experimental network > >> than in the whole of the standardised and soon-to-be standardised history > >> of PCEP. > >> > >> How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I > >> can pre-emptively compromise :-) > >> > >> Adrian > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > >> > Sent: 10 June 2016 11:03 > >> > To: Ramon Casellas; [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP > >> > registry > >> > > >> > Hi Ramon, > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramon > >> > > Casellas > >> > > Sent: 10 June 2016 14:42 > >> > > To: [email protected] > >> > > Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP > >> > > registry > >> > > > >> > > Hi Dhruv, Jeff, all > >> > > > >> > > Indeed. Having been involved in PCE-related experimental and > >> > > research activities I would welcome this and could be very helpful. > >> > > It will not solve the issues but at least it defines the ranges. > >> > > > >> > > I can't provide much feedback, just curious about the rationale > >> > > to allocate a given range e.g. 224-255 > 30 messages, etc. > >> > > >> > [Dhruv] You hit the jackpot.... we wanted to get the feedback of > >> > the WG about this. > >> > > >> > IMHO we need to strike a right balance that there are enough > >> > codepoints set aside for multiple parallel experimentations at a > >> > given time, and not to give > >> up a > >> > big chunk out for experimentation that it hinders IANA allocation. > >> > > >> > We currently have 9 messages set by IANA, some 4 new messages in > >> > queue to be sent to IANA, 13/255 ... so we do not have to worry > >> > about running out any time soon :) > >> > > >> > BTW I could find one instance in MANET where a similar range is > >> > allocated - > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5444#section-6.2 > >> > > >> > We do need to reach a consensus on what range to set aside. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Dhruv > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Best regards > >> > > Ramon > >> > > > >> > > On 10/06/2016 11:00, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > >> > > > Hi Dhruv, > >> > > > > >> > > > Support, very much needed! > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Jeff > >> > > > > >> > > > On 6/9/16, 5:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" > >> > > > <[email protected] > >> > > on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi WG, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> In PCE IANA registry [http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep] we > >> > > >> do not > >> > > have any codepoints for experimental usage. As we work on some > >> > > new > >> > experiments > >> > > with PCEP (sometimes in open source platform), it would be wise > >> > > to use experimental codepoints to avoid any conflict. For this > >> > > purpose we have written a small draft to carve out some > >> > > codepoints for experimental usage for PCEP messages, objects and TLVs. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoint > >> > > >> s-0 > >> > > >> 0 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Please provide your feedback. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks, > >> > > >> Dhruv & Daniel > >> > > >> > >> > > >> ----- > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Name: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Pce mailing list > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Pce mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Pce mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
