Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10

2014-02-25 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi PCErs, I have a few comments on the document: Section 1.1 : Strange indentation indentation: The indentation of the following section is not consistent: Section 1.1 Section 2.1 Section 2.1.1 Section 3.1 Section 3.2 ... Section 2.1.1 = Is there a requierement

Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt

2014-02-27 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi I agree with Ramon and Druv. In addition to those use case, the LSP object in PCReq/PCRep is also applicable for non-delegated LSP in an active stateful PCE case. One example can be the rerouting after a failure, this may affect delegated and non delegated LSPs, the Stateful PCE would be

Re: [Pce] comments draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08.txt

2014-03-03 Thread Cyril Margaria
should be part of the base extensions. If you agree/disagree, can share your thoughts please? Regards, Xian *From:* Ina Minei [mailto:inami...@google.com] *Sent:* 2014年3月1日 9:05 *To:* Zhangxian (Xian) *Cc:* Cyril Margaria; Ramon Casellas; pce@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [Pce] comments

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ?

2014-03-05 Thread Cyril Margaria
support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung leeyo...@huawei.com wrote: Support. Young -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:48 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of

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

2014-03-05 Thread Cyril Margaria
Support On 5 March 2014 14:05, Leeyoung leeyo...@huawei.com wrote: Support. Young -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:12 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of

Re: [Pce] 答复: Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG Document ?

2014-03-05 Thread Cyril Margaria
Support On 4 March 2014 23:30, Qin Wu bill...@huawei.com wrote: Support. -邮件原件- 发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Zafar Ali (zali) 发送时间: 2014年3月4日 22:22 收件人: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); pce@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as

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

2014-04-28 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi Young, This update reflects all my comments, I am OK with this version. Best Regards, Cyril. On 28 April 2014 12:31, Leeyoung leeyo...@huawei.com wrote: Hi Julien, This update reflects all the comments received from Cyril and Ramon as part of the WG LC. Cyril, please let the WG know

Re: [Pce] Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions

2014-07-23 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions. Best Regards, Cyril On 22 July 2014 11:27, Julien Meuric julien.meu...@orange.com wrote: Dear authors of the aforementioned document, Has all IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions been

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09

2014-07-23 Thread Cyril Margaria
H Jonathan, Thanks a lot for your review, please see inline. On 18 July 2014 10:22, Jonathan Hardwick jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com wrote: I've reviewed this document for the WG last call. I think this document is in good shape. I only found nits - see below. Best regards Jon ==

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09

2014-07-23 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments, please see inline On 23 July 2014 05:17, Zhangxian (Xian) zhang.x...@huawei.com wrote: I have also reviewed this draft (A bit late though) and find no major issues with it. On top of Jon's suggestions, pls find mine below. If these cannot be captured

Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-00.txt

2014-07-30 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I think Dhruv addition is good. Should be added to the document. On 30 July 2014 06:46, Dhruv Dhody dhruv.dh...@huawei.com wrote: Hi Julien, Hi Dhruv. I would say that, if the intend was to allow the specified TLV in objects where optional TLVs do not exist, it would not be

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09

2014-10-06 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, (maybe duplicated, I did not see my first email on the list after 1 hour) I support draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02 LC. I Have the following comment for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09: Section 2 The document references the following timers: - State Timeout Interval - Redelegation

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09

2014-10-08 Thread Cyril Margaria
Dear PCErs, The document has been updated to reflect your comments and has been posted. In addition we included the comments on IANA allocation received post LC. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions/ There's

Re: [Pce] NULL PCUpdate message

2014-10-09 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, From the definition, an empty PCUpd must contain an ERO, I think the question boils down to having an empty ERO or an ERO that mirrors the last ERO received. This is the only required parameter. I would propose the following text to clarify: Section 5.5.3: Add: Upon reception of a PCUpd

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09

2014-10-27 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi Ina, Thanks, see inline for the open points. On 27 October 2014 01:57, Ina Minei inami...@google.com wrote: Thank you for the careful review, please see inline ###. [snip] I Have the following comment for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09: Section 2 The document references the following

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09

2014-11-10 Thread Cyril Margaria
, Cyril Margaria cyril.marga...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ina, Thanks, see inline for the open points. On 27 October 2014 01:57, Ina Minei inami...@google.com wrote: Thank you for the careful review, please see inline ###. [snip] I Have the following comment for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09

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

2014-12-22 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I have the following comments on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02: Some comments require non minor changes (security section). I think the document should progress, but I am not sure its fully ready for LC. Section 3.2. Operation overview - A PCE may return a delegation to the PCC in

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

2014-12-22 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I have the following comments on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01. Section 3 : The documents proposes different optimizations, spending a paragraph or two to describe the different optimizations, then a list of extensions, and finish with procedures would help. Section 3.2

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

2014-12-22 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, While reviewing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations, I catched the following additional nit: SPEAKER-IDENTITY-ID - SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID - Missing a Manageability Considerations section, following RFC6123 On 22 December 2014 at 11:36, Cyril Margaria cyril.marga...@gmail.com wrote

Re: [Pce] Few comments/queries on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04

2015-06-10 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, On 10 June 2015 at 03:32, Venugopal Reddy K venugopalred...@huawei.com wrote: Hi, Everyone! Have few comments/queries on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04. Could you please clarify on below points: Section 6 In case of PCEP session failure, control over PCE-initiated LSPs

Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-minei-pce-association-group-01.txt

2015-07-22 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I did read the document, having PCE-initiated association is a good thing in my opinion. I think the following points should be added to the document: 1) capability negotiation 2) Considerations on how each peer should deal with the extra state, and associated error codes to say too many

Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-minei-pce-association-group

2015-11-05 Thread Cyril Margaria
please see inline 3) Association control : the PCC and any PCE can create associations: > this diverge from the existing mechanism from the statefull document. > In my opinion this aspect makes the control and state maintenance more > complicated. The use cases behind this multiple-controller

[Pce] Question on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11

2015-10-19 Thread Cyril Margaria
Dear authors, PCE'ers, Following the comment on the Error-Type 19, Error-value 4 comments (PCNtf), I have the following additional comments/questions regarding section 7.3.3 LSP Error Code TLV: - When should each error code be sent, documents usually describe the specific conditions when an

Re: [Pce] Urgent issue with draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : PCE advising PCC about no path

2016-10-12 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I think the text from Stephane solve well the no-path case, if a PCE would like to force a tear-down of the LSP, the admin-status bit seems appropriate. In the case you mention, a PCE may sets a loose hop towards egress, but its up to the PCC to expand or not the ERO. BR Cyril On 11

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

2017-07-25 Thread Cyril Margaria
+1, PCEP is rather efficient at dealing with paths and constraints. PCE-CC , as someone mentioned earlier, can be seen as 1-hop LSPs, there could be minimum protocol extensions. PCEP-LS is redoing links-state flooding over PCEP, using the same elements as existing protocols. This sounds OK as an

Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text

2017-05-08 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, >From what I recall, the limit exceeded can refer to the number of LSPs, memory, ..etc and the notification was introduced to support the same logic as rfc5440 "Overloaded PCE" notification. To keep that and to support soft/administrative limits, I am in favor of MAY terminate the session.

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11

2018-01-30 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I have the following (hopefully not too late) comments/questions: Section 5.3 ERO Object S: When this bit is set, the SID value in the subobject body is null. In this case, the PCC is responsible for choosing the SID value, e.g., by looking up its TED using the

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

2018-02-01 Thread Cyril Margaria
Hi, I support the feature, I have the following comment regarding the draft: - There is not mandated capability negotiation, this generally makes interworking more cumbersome. This could be resolved by mandating the presence of OP-CONF-ASSOC-RANGE, and using reserved value 0,0 for

Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions

2018-07-24 Thread Cyril Margaria
I started to process the comments, I will distribute a draft by tomorrow. From: Leeyoung Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 10:28:45 AM To: Cyril Margaria Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions Hi Cyril, We are waiting

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

2018-03-02 Thread Cyril Margaria
Yes/Support . On 23 February 2018 at 00:51, Aijun Wang wrote: > Yes/Support > > > > *发件人:* Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com] > *发送时间:* 2018年2月20日 21:34 > *收件人:* pce@ietf.org > *抄送:* draft-li-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org

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

2018-04-25 Thread Cyril Margaria
Txt: https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft- > ietf-pce-association-group-05.txt > > > > *From:* Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Cyril Margaria > *Sent:* 02 February 2018 04:54 > *To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane DTF/DERX <stephane.litkow...@oran

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

2018-09-18 Thread Cyril Margaria
..@huawei.com >> >> [image: Huawei-small] >> >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from >> HUAWEI, which >> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. >> Any use of the >> information con