is mandatory.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> Le 26/03/2021 à 03:46, Chengli (Cheng Li) a écrit :
>>> > Hi Aijun,
>>> >
>>> > Many thanks for your comments!
t;
>> Regards
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> Le 26/03/2021 à 03:46, Chengli (Cheng Li) a écrit :
>> > Hi Aijun,
>> >
>> > Many thanks for your comments! Please see my reply inline. The diff is
>> attached.
>> >
>> > Respect,
>>
:
>> > Hi Aijun,
>> >
>> > Many thanks for your comments! Please see my reply inline. The diff is
>> attached.
>> >
>> > Respect,
>> > Cheng
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
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
; Cheng
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aijun Wang [mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn
> <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>]
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:57 AM
> > To: julien.meu...@orange.com <mailto:j
mments! Please see my reply inline. The diff is
> attached.
> >
> > Respect,
> > Cheng
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aijun Wang [mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn]
> > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:57 AM
> > T
;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Aijun Wang [mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn]
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:57 AM
> To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-la
Hi Tom,
What really matters for the IANA early allocation is that the behaviors
associated to the code points are clear and stable. Assuming the WG
agrees on moving to the "binding value" terminology all along the
document, then the technical specification wouldn't change (i.e. it
would clearly
t;> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:05 PM Siva Sivabalan
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases
>>>> for that. The pro
ID and we
>>> definitely DO NOT want to limit it to just SR-TE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Pce *On Behalf Of * Gyan Mishra
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2
*On Behalf Of * Gyan Mishra
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2021 7:53 PM
>> *To:* Siva Sivabalan
>> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org; Stone,
>> Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-pce-bin
hra
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2021 7:53 PM
> *To:* Siva Sivabalan
> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org; Stone,
> Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07
> (and Code Point Allocation)
>
>
Sivabalan
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org; Stone, Andrew
(Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Hi Siva
I believe I was missing the signaling aspect for the PCE to build
e to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”.
>>>>
>>>> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with
>>>> label binding and binding SID.
>>>>
>>>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be
>>>> “SR-TE-BSID TL
and binding SID.
>>>
>>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be
>>> “SR-TE-BSID TLV”. Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 26
our help!
>>>
>>> Cheng
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM
>>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li
, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM
>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; julien.meu...@orange.com;
>> pce@ietf.org
>> Cc: 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
> Respect,
> Cheng
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com]
>
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM
> To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-b
From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: 26 March 2021 03:12
Hi Tom,
Many thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
Yes, on the use of zero, that was just a passing thought.
On terminology, as in my other e-mail, and as is implied in Adrian's comments,
I think
binding label/SID an
From: Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 23 March 2021 10:17
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Hi Julien, WG, authors.
Code point allocation: Is the request for all of the code points in the
document? What about the not-yet-allocated code point from
20, 2021 4:21 AM
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 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 all,
Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the wor
ding-label-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07
(and Code Point Allocation)
Hi all,
Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of SRTE, and
the document goes to good lengths to describe the various scenarios and
co
Hi Tom,
As agreed with the authors, we'll proceed with the early allocation
request by leaving the error codes pending upcoming updates (i.e.
request allocation for PCEP TLV and LSP object flags). This will leave
you some time to find an agreement on the final wording of the error
messages.
Hi Cheng!
This is good progress, thanks.
I have cut down to the points that are still open.
Nothing we need to fight about
Best,
Adrian
>> == Questions / Issues ==
>>
>> 3.
>>
>> o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
>> specified in [RFC5462] where only
...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 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,
1. The concept of PCC requests the allocating of BSID for a LSP is clear, but
the scenario that PCE allocate the BSID
; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 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)
Separate to my other comments
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 March
Of Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:27 AM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Cc: 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 Adrian,
Long time no see! Thanks
Hi Tom,
Thanks, please see inline.
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: tom petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:02 PM
To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce
-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Separate to my other comments
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 March 2021 11:08
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week PCE
-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Hi all,
I support adoption of this draft, but I have a certain number of questions for
the authors:
- As far as I know, routers manage their MPLS label allocation by interface
Cc: 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 all,
Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of SRTE, and the
document goes to good lengths to describe the various scenarios
-label-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Hi,
1. The concept of PCC requests the allocating of BSID for a LSP is clear, but
the scenario that PCE allocate the BSID is not convincible.
PCE can request the PCC
-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and
Code Point Allocation)
Hi Julien, WG, authors.
Code point allocation: Is the request for all of the code points in the
document? What about the not-yet-allocated code point from
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce
Hi Adrian,
Thanks a lot for your thorough review.
Your comment about draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller is
legitimate. Good news: it's in the RFC Editor queue
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php#draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller)
and associated code points
Hi Julien, WG, authors.
Code point allocation: Is the request for all of the code points in the
document? What about the not-yet-allocated code point from
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. This spec can't be
implemented without it.
WG last call: I have a few questions/issues/nits
Separate to my other comments
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 March 2021 11:08
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your
feedback, whatever it
From: Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 18 March 2021 11:08
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your
feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end
on Thursday April
Hi,
1. The concept of PCC requests the allocating of BSID for a LSP is clear,
but the scenario that PCE allocate the BSID is not convincible.
PCE can request the PCC to allocate the BSID for one LSP. It should not
allocate the value directly.
2. What's the reason to include the BT=3, that is
Hi all,
Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of SRTE, and the
document goes to good lengths to describe the various scenarios and
combinations.
Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further clarification
on the following text (section 4):
The
Hi all,
I support adoption of this draft, but I have a certain number of
questions for the authors:
- As far as I know, routers manage their MPLS label allocation by interface,
except for Segment Routing which uses an SRGB. In the draft, you mention
that the BSID, associated with a given
Many thanks Dhruv and Julien!
I support the adoption and early allocation as a co-author. Luckily, before
April 1st.
Thank you for your work!
Respect!
Cheng
-Original Message-
From: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 7:09 PM
41 matches
Mail list logo
