Forwarding since this never made it to the mailing list archive
-- Forwarded message -
From: satish karunanithi
Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
Hi Andrew,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should
Dhruv Dhody has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09 as None on behalf of the PCE working
group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/
___
Pce
Hi Authors,
I have completed my shepherd review. I have gone ahead and made some minor
edits directly in the XML source. Please verify them and if acceptable, go
ahead and post a new version. Once the new version is posted, we will ship
it to the IESG.
I have also made RFC 8253 and RFC 8281 as
Hi Ketan,
Jumping directly to...
>
>> 15 draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-15
>>>
>>> 17 Abstract
>>>
>>> 19 Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any
>>> 20 path. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions)
>>> 21 that
Hi Ketan, Authors,
I am just responding to a few comments as a Shepherd. Please work with each
other and let's resolve these comments
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hello Authors/All,
>
> I've reviewed the draft from the perspective of consistency with the SR
>
Hi Andrew,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:44 PM Andrew Stone (Nokia)
wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors and
>
lly I didn't miss anything. Version 15 is uploaded.
> Thanks a lot for your comments and updates!
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> On Saturday, March 9th, 2024 at 8:23 AM, Dhruv Dhody
> wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> I have finished the shepherd review of
> draft-ietf
Hi Éric,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 12:53 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-24: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email
Hi Mahesh,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:50 AM Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-23: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
Hi Gunter,
Thanks for a detailed review.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:49 PM Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the
Hi Jim,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Jim Guichard via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email
Hi,
Please find the WG status as presented today -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-pce-1-introduction-00.pdf
- 1 new RFCs since IETF 118
- RFC 9504 - draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls
- I-Ds in the RFC Editor Queue
-
(PCE) WG of the IETF.
>
>Title: A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications
> Protocol (PCEP)
> Authors: Dhruv Dhody
> Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> Jonathan Hardwick
> Jeff Tantsura
>Name:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-23
ar 7, 2024 at 8:21 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> Considering this is a busy time just before the IETF meeting, we are
> extending the WGLC for a week. Please respond by Thursday March 14th. It is
> important to be explicitly vocal during the last call and we request you
eng Li
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:46 AM
> *To:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ;
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org
> *Cc:* pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody <
> d...@dhruvdhody.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-
l.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml;?>
http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml;?>
http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml;?>
http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml;?>
http://xml.resource
at 3:02 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html
>
> Please indicate your support or con
Hi WG,
The **draft** agenda for the PCE WG sessions during IETF 119 is posted -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-119-pce/
Please unicast us if there is any change needed.
Please note that the allocated time includes time for Q Please use the
mailing list to bring out the key point that
Gentle reminder... The last date is Monday 4th March!
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 11:43 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 119 [1] week. If you need
> agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
> the chairs/secre
t that you need to update the RBNF for every PCEP message
that can carry this new object whereas in case of using an existing object
you
just get it for free :)
An example can be seen at recent objects added CCI, BU in RFC9050 and
RFC8233 respectively.
Thanks!
Dhruv
> Thanks in advance,
ruv & Julien
> PCE WG Co-chairs
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: John Scudder
> Date: Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for
> draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02
> To: Dhruv Dhody
> Cc: draft-ietf-
Forwarding to PCE List for visibility
-- Forwarded message -
From: Karboubi, Amal
Date: Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [spring] New Version Notification for
draft-karboubi-spring-sidlist-optimized-cs-sr-00.txt
To: spr...@ietf.org
Hello,
We've submitted a new
-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
Flag Field" registry:
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:29 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of
> draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions for an early code point
> allocation for
Hi WG,
This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
to the progression of the draft to RFC,
Hi WG,
The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to
those who provided
feedback and comments.
Authors,
Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments
received in -01.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:19 PM Dhruv Dhody w
Hi,
The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 119 [1] week. If you need
agenda time
to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to the
chairs/secretary by Monday, March 4th by including:
- the draft(s) you want to discuss,
- the expected presenter name,
- will you be attending
H Luis, WG,
Did you consider defining a new METRIC Object-type (within the existing
object-class 6) called Precision instead of defining a brand new object
with new object-class/object-type?
If we choose to define just a new object-type, it has an added advantage of
keeping the RBNF grammar
there was an earlier allocation request where some
> codepoints
> were already allocated by IANA -
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8GtjtxNWeA9MxpySx6J7XZKmlUc/
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> PCE WG Co-chairs
>
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:37 PM John Scudder w
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions for an early code point
allocation for the codepoints listed in -
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02.html#section-8.1
(TBD1-2)
Hi Cheng,
In Section 9.2 (New SRv6-ERO NAI Type Registry) where you define a new
registry, please add -
The allocation policy for this new registry is by IETF Review [RFC8126].
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:33 PM Cheng Li
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thank you so much for your comments,
Hi Mrinmoy
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:43 AM Mrinmoy Das wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> Happy New Year! Hope you all are doing fine.
>
> I would like to clarify my understanding of Bandwidth object Type usage
> and ordering in the PcRpt message.
>
> 1. *Ordering:*
>
> As per RFC8231 below the
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why
/ Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after
4 1:11 PM
> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; tom petch <
> ie...@btconnect.com>; Dhruv Dhody
> Cc: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo
>
> Just small update - 07 version submitted now.
>
> Regards,
> Samuel
>
> -O
Hi Mike,
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-13.html#section-6.2
Can the TBD4 SR-POLICY-CAPABILITY be changed to SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY to
match the naming style for other TLVs?
Thanks!
Dhruv
-- Forwarded message -
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Wed
Hi WG,
We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
allocation process.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:53 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp f
to
handle any pending comments or are we ready to go?
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:58 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.
>
> https://datatracker.i
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp for an early code point allocation
for the codepoints listed in -
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.html#section-6.2
(TBD1-4)
Hi Tom, WG,
Speaking as a WG member...
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM tom petch wrote:
> From: Pce on behalf of Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
>
> Sent: 10 January 2024 10:18
>
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> I would like to ask for WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo on behalf of
> authors. Are there any remaining
Hi WG,
This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
to the progression of the draft to
Hi Murray,
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:30 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email
Hi Èric,
Happy 2024!
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:03 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included
Dhruv Dhody has requested publication of
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29 as Proposed Standard on behalf of
the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip
Forwarding this IPR response as I dont see it in the mailing list
archive
-- Forwarded message -
From: Praveen Maheshwari
Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) , Dhruv Dhody
Hi WG,
The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to
those who provided
feedback and comments.
Authors,
Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments
received in -01.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:02 PM Dhruv Dhody w
Hi Christer,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 1:05 AM Russ Housley wrote:
> Hi Christer.
>
> >> Section 2.3 of RFC 8446 explains that the security provided to early
> data is
> >> weaker than
> >> the security provided to other kinds of TLS data. This is the reason
> that
> >> PCEPS MUST NOT
> >> make
Hi,
This early allocation for draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path has been completed!
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
-- Forwarded message -
From: Amanda Baber via RT
Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:03 AM
Subject: [IANA #1290605] Early Code Point Allocation for
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path
To:
Hi Authors,
In preparation for WG adoption on this draft, we'd like all authors 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 in
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why
/ Why not? What needs to be fixed
Hi Éric,
Thanks for your review.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:28 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-pce-07-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:25 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-pce-07-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses
Hi,
Can you please upload a new version of the I-D that tidies up the document
in preparation for WG adoption call?
- Limit the number of authors to 5
- Add text to the security consideration section (add references to
relevant rfcs if no new security threat is assumed)
- Think about adding a
This document
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> PCE WG Co-chairs
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:31 PM John Scudder wrote:
>
> > Argh, I thought I had gotten up-to-date yesterday! There’s always
> > something. Thanks, and by all means please let me know if t
Hi WG,
The **draft** agenda for the PCE WG sessions during IETF 118 is posted -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-118-pce/
Please unicast us if there is any change needed.
Please note that the allocated time includes time for Q Please use the
mailing list to bring out the key point that
-01 handling comments received so far.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 6:41 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> Since we had IPR disclosures [1] during the adoption call, we have
> extended the adoption call till Friday Oct 13th. Feel free to let us know
> if there
Hi,
Gentle reminder to make your slot requests by tomorrow!
Thanks!
PCE Chairs & Secretary
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 118 [1] week. If you need
>> agenda time to progress som
for IPR polls during adoption/LC for disclosures :)
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-chen-pce-bier
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:19 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-
This time with the correct subject :)
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 118 [1] week. If you need
> agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
> the chairs/secretary by M
Hi,
The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 118 [1] week. If you need
agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
the chairs/secretary by Monday, Oct 23rd by including:
- the draft(s) you want to discuss,
- the expected presenter name,
- will you be attending
ls, it needs to be reviewed by the chairman before it can be
> seen on the IETF page. Please check back later.
>
> Please, See inline for detailed response...
>
>
>
> Original
> *From: *AdrianFarrel
> *To: *'Dhruv Dhody' ;pce@ietf.org ;
> *Cc: *draft-chen-pce-b...@ietf.org
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-bier/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why
/ Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing
to work on this
Hi WG,
We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
allocation process.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:25 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color
> for an early code
bound of metric pointed out by Dhruv,
> affinity,… set for 1st CP. Theoretically same thing can be achieved by
> setting MSD bound in 1st CP as with Flex-algo path-computation will
> probably result in just one SID anyway (Flex-algo SID of destination) – at
> least if other constraints
Hi Marcel, PSF,
Speaking as a WG participant...
Note that we do have a metric type "T=20: Domain Count metric (number of
domains crossed)."; we can simply use this metric type, asking the PCE to
optimize based on this which should lead to preferring intra-domain paths.
See
at 4:03 PM wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-22.txt is now available. It is a
> work
> item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF.
>
>Title: A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications
> Protocol (PCEP)
>
Dhruv Dhody has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-20
as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color
for an early code point allocation for the following allocations listed in
Section 6 -
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-02.html#section-6
RFC 7120 requires the following criteria to proceed:
Hi Andrew,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:56 PM Andrew Stone (Nokia)
wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and
>
.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
[1]
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-18.html#section-4.1.1
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:56 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> The author's have prepared a working copy based on the last set of
> comments at https://github.c
Hi WG,
We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
allocation process.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:27 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo
> for an early code
# Document Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25
I have done a shepherd review of this I-D. I have some concerns that should
be resolved before we send this to our AD.
I continue to believe that this I-D is better suited as experimental;
authors seem to disagree.
##
Hi WG,
The author's have prepared a working copy based on the last set of comments
at https://github.com/muzixing/IETF-PCEP-SRV6.
The only open issue is the matter of X-flag. On the mailing list and during
IETF 117, Ketan suggested that we remove the X-flag if there is no known
implementation
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo for
an early code point allocation for the following allocations -
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-04.html#section-7.1
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-04.html#section-7.3
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
wrote:
> Please see inline..
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:19 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
>> Hi Pavan,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:39 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Marcel, Hi!
>>> Thanks for bringing this to
gt; "VENDOR-INFORMATION" object in the Open message.
>
>
Hmm, with that reasoning do we need to do that for all PCEP messages?
Also, is there anything that cannot be achieved via the TLV, and you would
need the Object in the Open message case? Just wondering...
Thanks!
Dhruv
>
Hi Marcel,
Welcome, please consider joining the PCE mailing list so that we don't have
to manually approve your email to the list -
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
See inline...
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:11 AM Marcel Reuter (External) <
marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com> wrote:
>
Hi Ketan,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 8:38 PM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> There are few aspects that need further work/discussion on this draft.
>
> 1) We need some text that specifies that for SRv6 (unlike in the case of
> SR-MPLS), the MSD capabilities of the headend node alone is
Forwarding to the mailing list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Zafar Ali (zali)
Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
To: Dhruv Dhody , Siva Sivabalan
Cc: julien.meuric , Stone, Andrew (Nokia -
CA/Ottawa) , Zafar
Hi WG,
The **draft** agenda for the PCE WG sessions during IETF 117 is posted -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-117-pce/
Please unicast us if there is any change needed.
Please note that the allocated time includes time for Q Please use the
mailing list to bring out the key point that
rectly and not with
the alias.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:19 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 117 [1] week. If you need
> agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
> the chairs/secretary by Monday, Jul
ve Working
Groups.
I can bring it forward if you think that they need to be right after the
RSVP-TE bullet item.
Thanks!
Dhruv
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2023-07-07 12:02, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> > Hi Aijun,
> >
> > Two things,
> >
> > (1) We dont want a charter
Hi WG,
We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
allocation process.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We have received a request from the authors of
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip f
one”
>
> è July 2023 Submit PCEP extension for Native IP as a Proposed
> Standard
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> *发件人:* pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org]
Hi Huaimo,
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 8:41 PM Huaimo Chen
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I read through the draft and think that it is ready to become a PCE
> work item. Support its adoption.
>
> It seems that "RFC 7470" in Abstract should be removed or rephrased
> since RFCs should not be
Hi WG,
A gentle reminder for your comments on the proposed text for recharter!
We can also use a few "I have read the proposed charter update text and I
support rechartering!" :)
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:07 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> The PCE WG cha
Hi Mrinmoy,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:34 PM Mrinmoy Das wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
> Could anybody please clarify my doubt?
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Mrinmoy
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 3:22 PM Mrinmoy Das
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Team,
>>
>> I found below highlighted text in RFC 8231:
>>
>> *6.2
Hi WG,
Hari has been an excellent WG Secretary and we appreciate all his help in
running the WG. But Hari has indicated that he would like to step down.
Andrew Stone (andrew.st...@nokia.com) has stepped up to take up the role.
Let's welcome Andrew and thanks Hari!
Dhruv & Julien
(PCE WG
Hi Andrew, Authors,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 8:08 AM Andrew Stone (Nokia)
wrote:
> 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
g!
- Dhruv
> Thanks,
>
> Cheng
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce *On Behalf Of * Dhruv Dhody
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 21, 2023 1:38 PM
> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Pce] Proposed PCE WG Charter update
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> The PCE WG charter (-07) was
Hi,
The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 117 [1] week. If you need
agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
the chairs/secretary by Monday, July 10th by
including:
- the draft(s) you want to discuss,
- the expected presenter name,
- will you be attending
Hi WG,
The PCE WG charter (-07) was last updated in 2014. Your chairs and AD
discussed the need to bring the charter up to date. We have made a proposed
small update (-08) and placed it in our WG's Github -
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/charter
A diff of the changes can be seen at -
to
"Parked WG Document" from "WG Document" by Dhruv Dhody:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors/
Comment:
As per the WG status slides from IETF 116
draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
* -13 posted on 2023-03-09
* No changes!
* STILL no I-D currentl
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip for an early code point
allocation for the codepoints listed in Section 13 -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23#name-iana-considerations-35
RFC 7120
5 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1].
>
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
> to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articula
---
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very specialised and
> above
> my expertise area.
>
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address, do
Hi WG,
Please volunteer to be on the NomCom. I have been a voting member on the
NomCom twice and feel free to message off list if you have any questions!
Thanks!
Dhruv
-- Forwarded message -
From: NomCom Chair 2023
Date: Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 5:21 AM
Subject: NomCom 2023 Call for
version.
>
>
>
> Thanks all you together!
>
>
>
> Future reviews from other experts can be based on the updated version.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
Hi,
Just to close this on the list as well -- Mrinmoy and I discussed this
offline and the confusion with the BSID in the TLV and the BSID as part of
the SR-ERO subobject is cleared! No further action is needed!
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:02 PM Mrinmoy Das wrote:
> Hello Team,
>
Hi WG,
This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1].
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
you support it, please indicate
onstraint TLV is
>supposed to be included
>- Added section with remaining gaps/enhancements – to track them
>
>
>
> In case of no major comments, I’ll submit updated version by end of this
> week or beginning of next week.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Samuel
>
the algo, such as
> known planned maintenance or other impairments/rules. Due to MSD, maybe it
> can't encode this path within the confines of the Algo specified. However,
> if it used Algo-0 or another SIDs it can encode the path. I would assume
> this should be permitted, but Is there a ne
1 - 100 of 769 matches
Mail list logo
