[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

[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.

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

ve 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@dmarc.ietf.or

[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-entr

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

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

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-

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 -

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 COMMENT)

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

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:

[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.

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-iet

[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

[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

[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

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.

[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

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

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

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

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

nyliw" 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: Thursday, June 22, 2023 1:

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

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

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

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

-local-protection-enforcement-09=--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 observation and point about it being tec

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

the 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...@dhruvdhody.com"

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