Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang

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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional

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,

Re: [Pce] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07

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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

+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

Re: [Pce] [PCE]:New Version Notification for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt

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.

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

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

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-association-policy

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-association-policy

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

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

Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

+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 > >

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment?

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

Re: [Pce] Adrian stepping down as PCE co-chair

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

Re: [Pce] IPR poll on draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

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 >

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

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

Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths

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

Re: [Pce] PCE WG Adoption poll for draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association

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

Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04

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. > >

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn

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:

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption Call for draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6

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

Re: [Pce] changes in draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

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

Re: [Pce] Replacing Jon as PCE Co-Chair

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

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

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

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

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

Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

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

[Pce] Fwd: PCE-BSID Question to the List

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

[Pce] Mail regarding draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6

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

Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12.txt

sions for Segment Routing Authors : Siva Sivabalan Clarence Filsfils Jeff Tantsura Wim Henderickx Jon Hardwick Filename: draft-ietf-pce-segm

Re: [Pce] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

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. > > >

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

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,

Re: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group

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

Re: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing

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:

Re: [Pce] Second WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type

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

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

++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"

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

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

Re: [Pce] Is there any activity related to PCE graceful restart?

+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,

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce

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

Re: [Pce] Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type

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

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-applicability-actn-02

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:

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

yes/support Cheers, Jeff From: Pce on behalf of Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 09:10 To: 'Dhruv Dhody' , Jonathan Hardwick , Cc: ,

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity

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:

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09

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:

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06

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

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

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

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

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.

Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01

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

Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01

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

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01

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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a PCE WG Document

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

Re: [Pce] Adopting of draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as PCE WG Document

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

Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt

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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document?

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