Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Julien Meuric julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for
adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.
Would you be in favor/opposed
Hi,
While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to:
-BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA issues had
be solved
-Policies framework is comprehensive
-BGP infra in most cases is already in place
-RR construct provides hierarchy
-many
Hi,
Support as co-author.
Thanks!
Regards,
Jeff
On Sep 14, 2014, at 3:07 AM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com
wrote:
Dear WG,
We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt and this work
has considerably progressed in
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt and this work
has considerably progressed in other WG.
Are you in favor of adopting draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as
a PCE WG document ?
Thanks.
JP
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: julien.meu...@orange.com julien.meu...@orange.com
Organization: Orange
Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM
To: pce@ietf.org pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and
I fully agree with the comments and thanks Jon for bringing it up.
We will work to address it.
Regards,
Jeff
On Mar 25, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Dhruv Dhody
dhruv.i...@gmail.commailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, I agree with Jon.
Perhaps a new METRIC type for MSD?
Regards,
Dhruv
On Wed, Mar
path constraint does not apply to
them. Have I misunderstood?
Best regards
Jon
From:rabah.gued...@orange.commailto:rabah.gued...@orange.com
[mailto:rabah.gued...@orange.com]
Sent: 26 March 2015 06:18
To: DUGEON Olivier IMT/OLN; Jonathan Hardwick; Jeff Tantsura
Cc:
draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout
the
>> > WG about this.
>> >
>> > IMHO we need to strike a right balance that there are enough
>> > codepoints set aside for multiple parallel experimentations at a given
>> > time, and not to give
>> up a
>> > big chunk out for exp
Hi Robert,
I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the
implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.
I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.
Support as co-author
Cheers,
Jeff
On 8/12/16, 02:43, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote:
Hi all,
During the joint TEAS-MPLS-PCE Yang session in Berlin, we had a clear
consensus in the room on the interest for the
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:45 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org
Subject: Poll for adoption:
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 9:24 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwi...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption:
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of
Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 09:10
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' , Jonathan Hardwick
,
Cc: ,
++1
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of Cyril Margaria
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 12:25
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane DTF/DERX
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org"
We all know – every protocol has its strong and less strong sides, however the
properties required for a distributed device2device communication are quite
different from device2controller environment and should be evaluated as such.
There’s a long list of pros and cons for either environments
Julien,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55
To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Final IPR Check for
+1 Adrian.
complexity associated with GR (additional state/signaling/etc) wouldn’t be
justified, given existing means to provide synchronization.
Cheers,
Jeff
On 6/19/17, 08:21, "Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel" wrote:
Hi Sasha,
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:25 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-h...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of Sureshbr
Date: Monday, May 1, 2017 at 21:23
To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" , Jonathan Hardwick
, "pce@ietf.org"
Cc:
As co-author - yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 00:32, Julien Meuric wrote:
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Considering the concerns discussed on the list after the 1st WG Last
> Call, especially about the backward compatibility of the additional TLV
> (please
Julien,
I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing.
Thanks,
Jeff
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 06:11 Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
wrote:
> I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From:
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
On 2/1/18, 09:10, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote:
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please review and share your
ince each vendor uses a different way to instruct its devices after a
> PCinitiate has completed successfully.
>
> A Deployment Considerations section sounds just the thing. Maybe we will lean
> on you for text after adoption :-)
>
> A
>
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura [mail
I’d “carefully” support the adoption, while functionality is needed, and having
complete set in a single protocol has its advantages (and complexity
associated), we already have one “kitchen sink” protocol, that has however been
designed to support 100M of entries and deal with bursty data,
Hi co-authors,
Few comments:
SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV should be changed (MSD handling) to be aligned with
section 3 of draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03
Could you please elaborate on use of Function Codes at the head-end?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
Hi,
Please see inline (MSD section).
Hope this clarifies, thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
[jeff] both IGP drafts have identical description of the BMI-MSD:
“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels a
node is capable of imposing, including all
sions for Segment Routing
Authors : Siva Sivabalan
Clarence Filsfils
Jeff Tantsura
Wim Henderickx
Jon Hardwick
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-segm
Yes/support
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:10 Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:
> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making
> draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group
> document.
>
>
>
Dear PCE,
Following our presentation in Bangkok,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-23-binding-segment-00.pdf
The authors would like to ask the WG the following:
(1) Do we link the Binding SID to the PCEP SR capability? Currently we
can assign BSID for RSVP-TE
Hi John/Ben,
Happy New Year!
Both OSPF and IS-IS MSD documents have been published.
Wrt PCE - they merely state that if there’s no PCEP session between nodes
advertising and receiving this information, the receiving node has no other
means to learn the MSD of the advertising node, since it is
Hi Julien,
Happy New Year to you too.
There’s a slight difference between limitless (e.g. unlimited) and limit
has not been been imposed (not configured/unknown/etc).
I think “limitless” doesn’t convey the exact meaning. In simple terms - if
L=1, don’t use MSD as a constraint in the path
to indicate that it does not impose
> any limit on the MSD.
>
> Although it might be the opposite of what you'd expect, I think the
> definition is nevertheless clear as it is written.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric
> Sent: Monday, 7
I support the adoption and willing to work on it.
The Function Code section is not well specified and should refer to
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming that has requested new IANA
sub-registry "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors”.
In general it is unclear why do we need them and what does
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 1:35 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian, WG,
>
> We have posted a new version -09 that addresses WG LC comments (from Adrian
> and Dan).
>
> I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/
> Diff:
John,
Thanks for your great contribution!
Dhruv - welcome!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jan 28, 2019, at 08:13, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
>
> Hi PCEers,
>
> As announced at IETF103, Jon Hardwick has requested to step down as PCE
> Co-Chair. We thank him for his many years of service and wish him
the draft is ready for wg adoption and would like to request the
chairs to start the adoption call.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 10:19 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Fwd: PCE-B
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 20:26, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till
> 19th June 2019.
>
>
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 06:00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> draft-leedhody-pce-vn
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
As co-author support adoption.
Preemptively - not aware of any IPR
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 20, 2019, 1:45 PM -0400, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state
Hi Hari,
I’m not aware of any IPR applicable.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Aug 20, 2019, at 23:40, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for Working Group last call on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance
>
Thanks Adrian!
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 11, 2019, 1:14 PM -0700, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A , wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we noted earlier, Adrian stepped in to help us with the PCE document queue
> and help bring Dhruv on as a new chair. He has done a fantastic job and Dhruv
> and Julien are now ready to go
Mike,
Thanks for the consideration.
That was exactly my point, having a number of different drafts that are short,
concise and focused on a particular problem has always been my preference.
The use cases are different, while they don’t conflict they are also don’t
“require” each other. It is
+1
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 09:53, Jonathan Hardwick
> wrote:
>
> I support publication.
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>
>
I support the adoption.
Will work with the authors on some pieces that need to be clarified.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 25, 2019, 9:21 AM -0700, julien.meu...@orange.com, wrote:
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> In our adoption poll queue, draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment has been there
> for a little while, after it was
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 5, 2020, at 13:24, Jonathan Hardwick
> wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
___
Pce mailing list
Support as co-author
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 4, 2020, at 07:13, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-association-policy [1]. Please indicate your support
> or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of
> the
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why
I support the adoption given points rased by Dhruv are addressed ( post
adoption in fine)
Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 8, 2021, 1:32 AM -0800, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> Speaking as a WG participant...
>
> I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
> I have one
Hi Hari,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 10:10, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG Last Call on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 09:00, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi WG
>
> +1. Support adoption. Provides a nice and simple way to encode multiple
> paths, whether they be weighted or for backup purposes. Fills needed gaps in
> the Unicast SR
Hi,
It is the job of ingress router to impose the SID(label) stack that would
include one or more pairs of ELI/EL. This is always a subject to MSD
limitations (per platform/per LC if applicable).
The draft is not discussing implications of these limitations , which I find
rather unfortunate.
+1
Regards,
Jeff
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 14:13, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
>
> +1 thanks Julien, also support the document.
>
> Did not recognize that binding label and path segment we're requesting bits
> as well. Seems like this draft is pre-empting the inevitable
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:01, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This e-mail starts an adoption poll for
> draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional-08 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is
> ready to become a PCE WG item?
>
> Please respond to the PCE list,
Hi,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 26, 2022, at 20:19, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
> in accordance with
54 matches
Mail list logo