[Pce] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update

Support moving this through. Thanks Andrew From: julien.meu...@orange.com Date: Friday, September 6, 2024 at 8:24 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-iana-update Hi all, Since we have consensus, let's move forward with this simple fix to [1], as agreed with the I

[Pce] Re: Scope of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color draft

Hi Pavan, I have no concerns with the proposed change in the introduction. Thanks for adding it. +1 to Dhruv's comment regarding section 3. It's the only logic collision I can see from going through the document to handle this. Ignoring one if both exist, rather than erroring would probably be

[Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

Hi Dhruv, Adrian, WG, Proposed changes looks good to me and +1 for moving this through. The diff text was a clear easy read. Thanks Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 11:42 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-dhody-pce-iana-upd...@ietf.org , draft-farrel-pce-experimental

[Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

Hi Ketan, PCE WG I had the same thoughts as (3), but figured it might be a little unnecessary to have explicitly listed. If we think it’ll be useful in the future to be able to point to this document and say “RFC recommended PCEP WG use IETF Review on new registries” then that sounds good t

[Pce] Re: Adoption Poll of draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

Hi PCE WG, It seems sensible to me to blanket the registries with this change. As mentioned during the IETF 120 session, and indicated in the document, the existing procedures with IETF review will still ensure that registries with small number of bits are still handled with care and concern.

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-dhody-pce-iana-update

Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be

[Pce] PCE WG minutes for IETF 120

Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/minutes-120-pce-202407252200-01 Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Tha

[Pce] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03

registrations and the registration location are further described by RFC 9371” From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 4:31 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) , Boris Hassanov , pce@ietf.org , Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce-chairs , draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce

[Pce] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03

Hi all, I’ve read the latest version and support it’s progression. The text is a clear read. Share similar comment of Boris’ about Enterprise number – inherited from RFC 7470 -> points to RFC 2578 -> then pointers drop unless you read between the lines that it’s effectively the SNMP OID PEN. M

[Pce] Re: Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

Hi all, I like the PcOpen + PcNotify idea, mainly because I hope we can generically define a pattern of PcOpen content refresh without the need for a session flap. Using PcOpen+PcNotify also becomes a bit more consistent in approach with the similar state synchronization proposal for add/delet

[Pce] Re: Pending item for draft-ietf-pce-state-sync

ever be required, it would be straight forward to define a new TLV for pce-state sync to carry that anyways. I do not think we need to handle this now. Thanks! Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Saturday, July 6, 2024 at 7:52 AM To: draft-ietf-pce-state-s...@ietf.org , Andrew Stone (Nokia) Cc: pce@

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor

Hi Authors, In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclose

[Pce] Re: Call for slot in the PCE WG at IETF 120

Hi PCE WG, Friendly reminder about the below! Thanks Andrew (PCE WG Secretary) From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Saturday, June 22, 2024 at 5:17 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs Subject: Call for slot in the PCE WG at IETF 120 Hi, The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 120 [1] week. If you need

[Pce] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04

Hi PCEWG, Authors Thanks for the document. I've read through the latest version, and it is a clear read in its use cases and purpose. I have two questions/comments below, but do not think these fundamentally change the document and support its publication. Thanks Andrew - Introduction Shoul

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color

Hi Authors, In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclose

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space

Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be dis

[Pce] PCE WG minutes for IETF 119

Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/minutes-119-pce-202403190530-00 Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks,

Re: [Pce] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-13.txt

tations have gone that way already. While > in BGP, different code-points were used. This is why the IDR draft has > > > > > On Wednesday, January 17th, 2024 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Stone \(Nokia\) > andrew.stone=40nokia@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40nokia@dma

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional

Hi Authors, In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10

Hi Quan, Replies inline below. Thanks Andrew From: "xiong.q...@zte.com.cn" Date: Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 3:26 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" Cc: "d...@dhruvdhody.com" , "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org" , "draft-peng-pce-entropy

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10

Hi Authors and WG. Overall the document reads pretty clear. Some comments/feedback from doing a read through: - Is there any value in having a reference to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-00? From the read I don't see any other purpose than "this is also ongoing" and can likely be removed? -

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position

Hi Authors, In preparation for adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be dis

Re: [Pce] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-13.txt

Hi Mike, Thanks for addressing the comments, looks good to me. Regarding section 6.5 - is it worth making the text identical to match https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-03#section-8.4 since I assume the intent is for both of these docs to use the same registr

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

: "Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)" Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 at 12:53 PM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , Dhruv Dhody , "pce@ietf.org" Cc: pce-chairs , "draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi PCE WG, Authors, I’ve read the latest version and it was a straight forward read and looks to be in good shape. In addition, comments I had during original adoption were also all addressed. I support progression of the document. Some minor comments/feedback below. Thanks Andrew - Termino

Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-06.txt

Hi Cheng, Authors, Thanks for this document. It's fairly well written and I found many of the questions/thoughts I had were being answered as I kept reading. Below are some comments/feedback/questions. Thanks in advance! - It’s likely worth defining the term computation loop as a reader may

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

Hi Authors, In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed

Re: [Pce] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

, 2024 at 1:12 AM To: Murray Kucherawy Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tl...@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" , "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with CO

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi PCE WG, Support adoption as coauthor. The extensions provided in the document provide needed (interoperable) knobs to complete some use cases defined in the SPRING Circuit Style document. While the current goal is CS-SR, the encodings defined provide independent functionality that can be app

Re: [Pce] IPR poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi PCE WG I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in accordance with IETF IPR rules. Thanks Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Friday, December 1, 2023 at 5:41 AM To: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" , "praveen.maheshw...@airtel.com" ,

Re: [Pce] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13

I've also read the new version and -02 content is more streamlined and looks good to me. +1 for proceeding on WGLC Thanks Andrew On 2023-11-16, 9:14 AM, "Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel" mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of adr...@olddog.co.uk > wrote: CAU

[Pce] PCE WG minutes for IETF 118

Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/minutes-118-pce-202311091400-00 Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Tha

Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-01

Hi Russ, WG, Responses inline below. Thanks Andrew From: Russ Housley Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:50 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" Cc: "draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tl...@ietf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-

[Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-01

Hi authors of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13, I’ve been selected as the document shepherd for this draft. Thank you for the work on this document. The direct references to draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis sections were useful and the document is well written. From a quick peak at messages from [1], it see

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11

Hi Authors, In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be

Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intra vs Inter-domain

Hi all / PCE WG Some thoughts … In general I think it should be up to local PCE policy/implementation to determine if the 'best' path is one which prefers intra or inter domain paths. This goes for Flex Algo related or non-Flex Algo computations. It would be up to and dependent on PCE implemen

[Pce] IPR poll for draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13

Hi Authors, In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance with IETF IPR rules. Please respond (copying the mailing list) to say one of: - I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclose

Re: [Pce] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-01.txt

Looks good to me, resolves the question I raised. Thanks Andrew On 2023-08-08, 2:51 AM, "Cheng Li" mailto:c...@huawei.com> >> wrote: Hi Andrew and Aijun, The draft has been updated to address your comments received in the WG adoption call. Pl

[Pce] PCE WG minutes for IETF 117

Hi WG, Please find the minutes for PCE WG session https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-117-pce-202307242230/ Thanks to those who contributed to the minutes. Please reach out to pce-cha...@ietf.org in case any correction needs to be made. Thanks, Dhruv, Julien &

Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor

Looks good to me! Thanks Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 11:31 PM To: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Cc: julien.meu...@orange.com ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor CAUTION: This is an

Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor

Hi PCE WG, Read the document and support adoption. The document is clear and relatively straight forward to follow and the use case does fill a hole within the stateful toolset. One non-blocking question: - In version 16, section 5.1, the final sentence is "This information can be used in St

Re: [Pce] Proposed PCE WG Charter update

Hi PCE chairs, Recharter changes look good to me. The update looks needed considering the prevalence of all things SPRING related. Thanks Andrew From: Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 1:38 AM To: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] Proposed PCE WG Charter update CA

Re: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, Thank you for the review. New revision posted regarding the nits. Regarding your comments: - Regarding BCP14 terms: that was changed in revision 10 [1] to address AD review and discussion in [2]. John had some good rationale on the english explanation against the intent of the wording

Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

6-23, 9:18 AM, "Roman Danyliw" mailto:r...@cert.org>> wrote: Hi Andrew! This text suggested below addresses the feedback in my DISCUSS position. Thanks, Roman > -----Original Message- > From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com>> > Sent: Thur

Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roman, Thank you for the review. Regarding the 3 text statements, thank you for catching that and can see how it looks inconsistent. Dhruv has kindly suggested the following text changes to help the text be more consistent (Thanks again Dhruv!). If you agree this helps clear the conflict,

Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Jim, Thank you for the review. I've made the following changes locally and will be pushing with the next revision: - Updated abstract to remark document updates RFC5440. - Changed RFC7525 reference to RFC9325. - Fixed the non-ascii text. New nits result: Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~)

Re: [Pce] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10

Hi Rifaat, Thank you for the review! Andrew On 2023-06-18, 12:31 PM, "Rifaat Shekh-Yusef via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional informati

Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-09

ning attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. > On May 18, 2023, at 6:51 PM, Andrew Stone (Nokia) <mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com>> wrote: > > To the PCE WG: > > Any preference regarding changing the capitalization text? i.e from > PROTECTION MAN

Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-09

To the PCE WG: Any preference regarding changing the capitalization text? i.e from PROTECTION MANADATORY to Protection Mandatory? The intent with capitalization was to try and pop out the values in the description text to make it clear to refer back to the terminology section. If this conflict

Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-08

rl2=draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-09&difftype=--html On 2023-04-24, 7:13 PM, "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com>> wrote: Hi John, Thank you very much for the review and including the inline diff, made it easier to follow. Good ob

Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-08

Hi John, Thank you very much for the review and including the inline diff, made it easier to follow. Good observation and point about it being technology-agnostic. It was motivated by SR, but as you point out the E+F flags descriptions and behavior clarifications may be applicable outside of

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

Hi Samuel, ACK – rationale and comparisons sounds reasonable and good to me. Thanks Andrew From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:48 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , "peng.sha...@zte.com.cn" Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha..

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

standardization goal here about intention of the knobs/behavior and wire encoding, but permit implementation to decide how best to achieve the signalled intention. Thanks Andrew From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , &qu

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

Hi Samuel, Replies inline below with [Andrew] Thanks Andrew From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" Date: Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 8:22 AM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , "peng.sha...@zte.com.cn" Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org" , "sli

Re: [Pce] PCE SID-algo draft extension

or is it A=true/false, B=true/false? Thanks Andrew From: "peng.sha...@zte.com.cn" Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 5:46 AM To: "ssi...@cisco.com" Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org" , "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" , "d...@dhruvdhod

Re: [Pce] Question on draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement

angle (I assume the thread pointer comment below is for this thread. Thanks Andrew From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 4:36 AM To: Dhruv Dhody , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "draft

Re: [Pce] draft-chen-idr-mbinding - BSID terminating node

. Replied below with [Andrew2]. Thanks Andrew From: Huaimo Chen Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:25 PM To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" , "i...@ietf.org" Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-chen-idr-mbinding - BSID terminating node Hi Andrew, Thanks much