more but that is water under the bridge. Sometimes you
have to say something along the lines of 'xxx whcih is referred to as zxyx in
the Normative reference'
Tom Petch
IGP RFCs are talking about "SR-Algorithm" (as we already discussed in this
thread), e.g.
https://datatracker.ie
Samuel
Yes the comments at the end work for me
Tom Petch
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: 11 January 2024 12:50
To: tom petch; Dhruv Dhody
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo
Hi Tom,
Since you responded
Samuel
Thank you for the reply. Dhruv made a similar response and I have responded to
that. I think that that response addresses the answers you give but let me
know if there is something I hve not addressed.
Tom Petch
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor
inline
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 10 January 2024 13:06
Hi Tom, WG,
Speaking as a WG member...
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM tom petch
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
Sent: 10 January 2024 10:18
Hi PCE WG,
I would like to ask for WG LC for
to come with multiple
algorithms in use it will likely be unclear what you are referencing in s.3.2,
s.3.3, s.3.4; is it the range 0-127 or 0-255 or 128-255 or...?
Tom Petch
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
once the draft submission blockade is lifted! You can
further post -01 handling comments received so far.
Looking at the datatracker I see that it is already listed as an Active I-D
under its old name. Isn't the datatracker clever?
Tom Petch
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023
nd AD'S time.
Cheers,
Adrian
On 24/05/2023 16:33 BST tom petch
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
From: Aijun Wang mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>>
Sent: 24 May 2023 16:02
As I remember, it is the IANA first allocate the necessary values, then go to
the RFCEditor.
Can we ask the
is impatient, another leisurely, then we
may not have interoperability. I would expect some guidance on this.
The I-D talks of RR with hundreds of clients which makes me wonder what else
might happen, such as a DoS attack.
Tom Petch
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On May 24, 2023, at 17:24, tom petch wr
. The e-mails that I see are when things go wrong and either the RFC
Editor or IANA (or both) are unclear as to what is intended and need guidance
from the WG
Tom Petch
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On May 24, 2023, at 17:12, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Aijun Wang
> Sent: 23 May 2023
Adding a new concern about session setup
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 22 May 2023 12:35
From: Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 16 May 2023 23:15
I do not understand how this operates. I would expect there to be two phases.
first the boxes are configured with the information
te to the RFC Editor in IANA Considerations to the effect
that these values appear in many places and need editing.
I will post separately a concern about BGP session setup.
Tom Petch
For the interaction between BGP and PCEP, we think the paces or procedures
described in this document can be c
Not another comment but to report that I got a bounce message to my previous
comment to the effect that it could not be delivered to
expand-draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native...@virtual.ietf.org
Not an address that I am familiar with.
Tom Petch
From
e language used is not that of BGP (e.g. Established, speaker). The timing
too of BGP can be quite slow, in setup and in shutdown and I wonder how a PCC
copes with that.
As I say, largely beyond me but the English needs some attention; using the
terminology of BGP would help.
Tom Petch
Pleas
?
Please, share your answer and any detailed feedback using the PCE
mailing list.
By when?
And is there any IPR on it?
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Julien
_
Ce message et ses pieces
, in the days of SMI, when many CCAMP registries were
IANA-maintained but that seems to have fallen by the wayside, especially with
TEAS which reinvented them in its I-Ds, close to but not quite the same as the
IANA registries.
So I see the problem but not a good solution.
Tom Petch
Please
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 25 November 2022 13:11
Some final (hopefully:-) stray thoughts on -20 after looking at RFC8231
typedef sync-state
the states seem intuitively plausible but do not seem to be described as such
in RFC8231, RFC8232 etc
extended tunnel id
is modelled
of the identity
I am almost done but not quite - I am trying to match 8231 with the YANG and
have not quite made it but is is CoB on Friday afternoon:-(
Tom Petch
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 22 November 2022 12:19
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 17 November 2022 10:42
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 17 November 2022 09:38
As mentioned in the PCE session during IETF 115, this WGLC has ended.
Thanks Tom for your review. Comment resolution is in progress.
-20 did appear
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 17 November 2022 09:38
As mentioned in the PCE session during IETF 115, this WGLC has ended.
Thanks Tom for your review. Comment resolution is in progress.
-20 did appear in October. Is that worth looking at or waiting for -21?
Tom
have seen statements in other WG to the effect that of course TLS1.2 is just
fine and we have no intention of doing anything else and one such I-D is past
the IESG.
Meanwhile I note the 'How to ... over 13' I-Ds and wish I had written one as I
intended in March:-(
Tom Petch
Thanks!
Dhruv (co-
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 03 October 2022 11:02
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 26 September 2022 14:01
Hi PCE WG,
This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19. Please review and share any feedback using
the PCE mailing list
of must + error-message for config false. I am
used to it for validating an update and cannot see when this message will be
generated. This occurs in a number of places.
RPC often have a nacm default-deny-all
s.9
The YANG modules .../is/are/
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Julien
that that got watered down by the supporters of TLS1.3.
This I-D needs the equivalent (or else a MUST NOT for TLS1.3!). Many of those
involved with security in the IETF will not understand the issue, how dangerous
TLS1.3 is for anything other than web access.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Julien
the course of preparation, further issues arise so that the
document may never be quite up-to-date, but that is hypothetical.
Tom Petch
b- a clarification I-D on informational track + an I-D updating PCEP on
standard track (possibly progressing at different paces)?
Please share your feedback using
and a reference to an I-D is now a reference to an RFC
(probably enforced by tools) but updated? A stretch - all the usual things
that are wrong with YANG modules are still wrong so my concern that we may get
stuck, waiting but I agree with adoption, we have to press on and hope:-(
Tom Petch
Authors
Reference and one without which the
pcep I-D cannot work; this is not just a question of nice to have information
but will it work at all which is why, having slept on it, I decided to oppose
so that others can see where we are heading!
Tom Petch
- SR Policy YANG expired 1 year ago
Thinking some more ...
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 07 September 2022 12:32
From: Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 02 September 2022 10:09
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.
https
-routing-ipv6 points to
RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more entries
so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry.
'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue
Tom Petch
Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.
Please be more vocal during WG polls
-address-no-zone.
Gosh, they are the ones that I have been reviewing, along with dhcp etc - what
a coincidence:-)
Tom Petch
That said, "ip-address-no-zone" is the right thing to do and I have updated it
in the latest version.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pc
right, then I will propose
some changes such as making 'enabled' a presence container with min and max in
it and with a constraint max GTE min.. I have yet to look at the other
negotiated values but expect that something similar will apply.
If not ?
Tom Petch
d/
in several places
case auth-tls
what if the role is both client and server?
RPC
might benefit from a NACM default deny all
9.2
/tools/datatracker/
TLP is out of date
The modelling of Keepalive confuses me - I need to check the RFC and the MIB
and come back to you
Tom Petch
On Thu, Mar 11,
. that key
names do not reveal sensitive information about the network.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Yaron
On 8/10/21, 15:01, "Qin Wu" wrote:
Yaron:
Thank for clarification. I agree to keep the last sentence in the second
paragraph of section 7 as is.
But I prefer to add th
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 30 March 2021 11:47
To: tom petch
Cc: pce@ietf.org; adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Hi Tom,
What really matters for the IANA
an unsatisfactory term, overloaded with semantics. Elsewhere
you use 'binding value ' and I see no reason not to use that throughout with an
explanation up front as to what it means.
Tom Petch
Respect,
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent
ver it is, gets embedded in IANA, I said that the IANA
early allocation should not proceed until this is resolved, but you may not
take it that far.
Tom Petch
---
Abstract
This document proposes
an approach for reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation
Element (PCE) for supporting PCE-based
orm. Perhaps
'Unable to amend the..
'Unable to allocate a..
And along with TBD2 and TBD6, as in my separate e-mail, I find 'Binding
label/SID' clumsy and would prefer a replacement such as 'Binding value'
Tom Petch
Tha
or an IPv6 SID as appropriate'
Tom Petch
Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code point
allocation to support interoperability testing.
RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
handling
avg
clearer for this and the other two times
counters
do they need a discontinuity date and time?
leaf num-keepalive-sent {
elsewhere keep-alive is hyphenated in YANG leaf names
5.2
/capcabilities/capabilities
There are parts of PCE I have not looked at previously and so plan to look at
the
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 20 February 2021 12:33
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 19 February 2021 12:30
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 February 2021 10:35
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your valuable feedback.
The more I look, the less I like it.
This I-D asks
From: Pce on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 19 February 2021 12:30
To: julien.meu...@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 February 2021 10:35
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your
the first is processed and
subsequent ones are silently discarded.
A Normative Reference to an unadopted I-D that expires next week is not a good
look:-)
Like I said, the word that came to my mind was 'sloppy':-(
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
On 17/02/2021 12:46, tom petch wrote:
>
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 07 February 2021 04:36
Hi Tom, WG,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 5:36 PM tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
>
> Sent: 01 February 2021 10:54
>
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of
> dra
; to which of these does the early
allocation request apply?
Tom Petch
RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
(henceforth called "specifications&q
, is PCE a routing protocol? There are conventions for routing
protocols such as OSPF about defining an identity and where to augment which
this does not follow suggesting that it does not qualify.
Tom Petch
Hi WG,
Please find the minutes for the PCE WG session -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
go.
Otherwise, I'm unaware of anyone stating a preference. For myself, I
only hope to achieve a good result.
"
Keep waiting:-(
Tom Petch
Thanks!
Dhruv
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: 12 November 2019 17:46
>
Dhruv
I note that -13 has appeared and wondered what significance I should
read into this.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Dhruv Dhody"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 1:14 PM
> Hi WG,
>
> This update includes -
>
> * Pending issues as
really been considered. Since it is
statistics, I imagine that there are no sensitive objects there, in
which case I would add a sentence to spell that out.
And something new
/Segement Routing /Segment Routing /
Tom Petch
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 18:34, tom petch wrote:
> Dhruv
>
> I
.
It is a MUST not a SHOULD so I believe that you must bring those
prefixes in line for key-chain, tls-client, tls-server. YANG allows it,
YANG guidelines does not.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Dhruv Dhody"
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:38 PM
Hi Martin,
The new
al)
The RFC Editor is ok, likes even, all the notes thereon to appear once
at the start of the I-D.
So my previous comment was that using for multiple I-Ds was
confusing but I meant to use , with an RFC Editor Note for
each, and not to use the I-D name.
HTH
Tom Petch
- Original M
unity.";
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Dhruv Dhody"
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:05 AM
Hi Tom,
> >
> > The draft does not have any other pending actions.
>
> Mmm why can I not resist the challenge?
>
[[Dhruv Dhody]] I am glad you took
09
5088
5089
5520
5541
5557
6536
8232
8306
while
8253
is there but Informative; my preference is for such references to be
Normative.
A common practice is to have a section just prior to the module proper
which gives references to all the RFC which the module references, which
obviates the appearance of warni
51 matches
Mail list logo
