Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Dear WG, I support WG adoption of this work. This work has had a long history and has matured and I believe is ready to be progressed. I believe that PCEP-LS would be valuable for operators and is not much change if using PCE CC centralized SDN controller. Thanks Gyan On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:18 PM wrote: > Hi all, > > We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to > progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense > than an independent submission. > As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become > a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing > list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case > you're opposed. > > Thank you, > > Julien > > --- > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi all, For an experimental document, we have a decent level of support and no objection. Every author has responded to the IPR check. The I-D is thus adopted by the PCE WG. @authors: Please, resubmit it as draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-00. Thanks, Julien On 04/04/2024 18:18, Julien Meuric wrote: Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi All, /Support I'm a believer in the work. For some scenarios that use PCE, especially optical deployments, not having to implement BGP will be a big benefit. The authors have proposed that the intended status should be "experimental," and provide the scope of the experiment in the document, which I also fully support. One observation is that the authors make good use of the "Implementation Status" section, it looks like the first example is related to: Experimental validation of the ACTN architecture for flexi-grid optical networks using Active Stateful Hierarchical PCEs https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8025182 It might be useful to provide a reference to a pre-print (version), so you don't have to reference the paywall version of the paper: https://zenodo.org/record/832904/files/Experimental%20Validation%20of%20the%20ACTN%20architecture.pdf If it is not related, then you have one more implementation example. A few minor NITS that you might want to squash as the document develops: Abstract OLD: a Path Computation Elements (PCEs) require NEW: Path Computation Elements (PCEs) require Introduction Both "multiprotocol" and "multi-protocol" are used in the document. OLD: Interior Gateway Protocol (IGPs) NEW: Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) OLD: It is important that the TED be NEW: The TED must be OLD: timely topology and TED update at the PCE NEW: timely topology and TED updates at the PCE OLD: This document describes a mechanism by which NEW: This document describes how OLD: Further as described NEW: Further, as described OLD: state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs in case of stateful PCE NEW: state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs in the case of stateful PCE Scope OLD: this document specifies new PCEP message and object/TLVs NEW: this document specifies new PCEP messages and object/TLVs OLD: the rules for a unknown message as per NEW: the rules for an unknown message as per OLD: Further since a PCEP speaker NEW: Further, since a PCEP speaker Applicability You capitalize "Parent" but not "child". OLD: would like to use PCEP as direct southbound interface NEW: would like to use PCEP as a direct southbound interface Requirements for PCEP extensions (extensions should be capitalized) OLD: Following key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) distribution are identified for PCEP: NEW: The following key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) distribution are identified for PCEP: OLD: During PCEP Initialization Phase NEW: During the PCEP Initialization Phase Capability Advertisement OLD: If the PCE that supports the extensions of this draft NEW: If the PCE supports the extensions defined in this draft Initial Link-State (and TE) Synchronization OLD: does not send positive acknowledgments NEW: does not send positive acknowledgements LS Object OLD: In case PCC only provides local information NEW: In case the PCC only provides local information OLD: all types of LS object is as follows NEW: all types of LS objects are as follows Link Descriptors TLV OLD: TLVs can carry data sourced either by IS-IS or OSPF or direct. NEW: TLVs can carry data sourced by IS-IS, OSPF, or direct. (As above for " Link Attributes TLV".) Information and Data Models OLD: An implementation SHOULD also provide the statistics: NEW: An implementation SHOULD also provide the following statistics: Verify Correct Operations OLD: to those already listed in [RFC5440] . NEW: to those already listed in [RFC5440]. BR, Dan. From: Aijun Wang Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:53 AM To: daniele.i...@gmail.com Cc: Adrian Farrel ; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Support for its forwarding. PCEP has almost all the corresponding parts of BGP to control the devices, implement and deploy the PCEP-LS can assist the simplification of SDN controller/PCE. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Apr 13, 2024, at 00:34, daniele.i...@gmail.com <mailto:daniele.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Julien, all, Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft. Cheers, Daniele From: Pce mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> ; pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Thanks, Julien. Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi all, I support the WG adoption of the draft. This work started long time ago. Currently there is the real requirement to export information in the scenario related with IP + optical. They prefers PCEP other than BGP. Best Regards, Zhenbin (Robin) 李振斌 Li Zhenbin Mobile: +86-13651017745/+968-91797068 Email: lizhen...@huawei.com 发件人：julien.meuric mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>> 收件人：pce mailto:pce@ietf.org>> 时 间：2024-04-04 18:20:29 主 题：[Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
This is an important extension, and the content is well written, I support the adoption. Hope more people can work on it more critical when it becomes an WG draft. Thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 9:23 AM To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Hi Julien, I support the WG adoption of this work. It has been a long time since this work was started. It is an useful experiment. It would be good if the WG adopts it and progresses it further, especially helps with the IANA issues as Adrian pointed out. Thank you! Best Regards, Shuping -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Support for its forwarding.PCEP has almost all the corresponding parts of BGP to control the devices, implement and deploy the PCEP-LS can assist the simplification of SDN controller/PCE.Aijun WangChina TelecomOn Apr 13, 2024, at 00:34, daniele.i...@gmail.com wrote:Hi Julien, all, Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft. Cheers,Daniele From: Pce On Behalf Of Adrian FarrelSent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PMTo: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Thanks, Julien. Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we should adopt this: 1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as Experimental is reassuring. 2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code). So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the draft. I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with Experimental Error-Types. Best, Adrian On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___Pce mailing listPce@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi Julien, all, Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft. Cheers, Daniele From: Pce On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PM To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Thanks, Julien. Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we should adopt this: 1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as Experimental is reassuring. 2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code). So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the draft. I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with Experimental Error-Types. Best, Adrian On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> wrote: Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi Julien, I support the WG adoption of this work. It has been a long time since this work was started. It is an useful experiment. It would be good if the WG adopts it and progresses it further, especially helps with the IANA issues as Adrian pointed out. Thank you! Best Regards, Shuping -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:19 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Thanks, Julien. Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we should adopt this: 1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as Experimental is reassuring. 2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code). So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the draft. I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with Experimental Error-Types. Best, Adrian On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense than an independent submission. As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case you're opposed. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
