From ramon.casellas@cttc.es Wed Feb 1 07:49:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC52511E8113 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:49:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOT0+xKoXj5K for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from aquila.cttc.es (aquila.cttc.es [84.88.62.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04F911E8071 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from leo (leo.cttc.es [84.88.62.208]) by aquila.cttc.es (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q11Fmu7C001604 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:48:56 +0100 Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E93A01FC5F for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:48:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F295FC9.7080908@cttc.es> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:52:41 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <00c601ccd48b$fc2c0df0$f48429d0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00c601ccd48b$fc2c0df0$f48429d0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.4 (leo [0.0.0.0]); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:48:51 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 84.88.62.230 Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version of draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability (02) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:49:15 -0000 Dear all, Dan El 16/01/2012 21:18, Daniel King escribió: > 3. Are we missing any PCE technology, mechanisms, protocol extensions? So > far I think we have touched on the following technologies in the document: (snip) Let me just mention Dhruv's draft on domain sequence encoding. It touches a quite concrete aspect on domain sequences but I believe it is relevant Caveat emptor: Yours truly is a co-author. > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt From jpv@cisco.com Thu Feb 2 00:14:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE9E21F890F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CmWIDXWwB9U6 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bgl-iport-1.cisco.com (bgl-iport-1.cisco.com [72.163.197.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2694621F890A for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:14:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=357; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328170449; x=1329380049; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=ugoEXV67gZpw0SFilFE7WFAwlgibuS4+u3hzhiXkPpA=; b=jCBqflMTA0ltZJo3eak0YKpCdiekpLN8D7DP5+CwYrdogBJeTHplKKXl c+YcyS+h3Vx8d6ByjqFP2OZQqRmDKw1wx3nudcq0UgLy1WUv1d10Zd9wj rRbh0TkQK1zehoIAHtzqb0yES/z33VO0I08CRWu+I+rDDU01d0RWE+PJN 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmcGAKBFKk9Io8UY/2dsb2JhbABDgw2sf4ILASeCMqA5gScBnmKLSQcCAgkFDAcGAQsBCAUDAwkcAQIBgnwFGAILAgVjFQ0vgjljBJUjhVeMfg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,608,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="4656504" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-2.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2012 08:14:07 +0000 Received: from xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-411.cisco.com [64.104.123.72]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q128E78U028799 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:14:07 GMT Received: from xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.71]) by xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:14:06 +0800 Received: from [10.60.114.231] ([10.60.114.231]) by xfe-hkg-412.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:14:05 +0800 From: JP Vasseur Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:14:04 +0100 Message-Id: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> To: pce@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2012 08:14:05.0786 (UTC) FILETIME=[A17773A0:01CCE182] Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:14:11 -0000 Dear all, This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more = discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are = in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document. JP and Julien. JP.= From daniel@olddog.co.uk Thu Feb 2 02:58:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B30221F8A77 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:58:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzju1DOnzt79 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC4821F8A74 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12AvSpS000993; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:32 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12AvQm8000987; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:27 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: "'Ramon Casellas'" , Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:20 -0000 Message-ID: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Aczhl3fxlA66WPQ8TW+JtrxP/vStFw== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:58:01 -0000 Hi Ramon, All, We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to = include "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As = usual though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments = are clearly required. The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember = correctly has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. So my first few questions would be: 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence representation? If so, then I agree draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability is a viable candidate to = document the requirements. 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution?=20 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? If we can answer "yes" to all questions, then I would have no problem referencing the document in draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability. Br, Dan.=20 -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Ramon Casellas Sent: 01 February 2012 15:53 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version of = draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability (02) Dear all, Dan El 16/01/2012 21:18, Daniel King escribi=F3: > 3. Are we missing any PCE technology, mechanisms, protocol extensions? = > So far I think we have touched on the following technologies in the document: (snip) Let me just mention Dhruv's draft on domain sequence encoding. It = touches a quite concrete aspect on domain sequences but I believe it is relevant Caveat emptor: Yours truly is a co-author. > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:=20 > draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From ogondio@tid.es Thu Feb 2 03:15:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9027821F8AAC for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:15:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIPfCtq1UvS7 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:15:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5937021F8AA8 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYR00BX9J97KM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from tid (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4E.EC.02893.A307A2F4; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LYR00BX4J95KM@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from EXCLU2K7.hi.inet ([10.95.67.65]) by htcasmad1.hi.inet ([192.168.0.1]) with mapi; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0100 Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:04 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= In-reply-to: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> To: Daniel King , 'Ramon Casellas' , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) Thread-index: Aczhl3fxlA66WPQ8TW+JtrxP/vStFwAA94ZQ acceptlanguage: es-ES, en-US X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7f2d6d000000b4d-31-4f2a703a399d X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0rUu0PI3WOJu0XT/BrsDo8eSJT+Z AhijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLe9C1jL5gpVXHl4CO2Bsbnol2MHBwSAiYSHTOLuhg5gUwxiQv3 1rOB2EICGxgl+i9qQtjfGCUe33SHsBsZJY5+dQGxWQRUJRb//sEOYrMJOEisW9TLBjJSWKBK 4uykEpAwp4C1RPPyLlYQW0SgUGLF301MICW8Ap4SWz+ClfAKCEr8mHyPBcRmFtCR6P3+jRnC FpeY82siK4StLfHk3QUwm1FAVmLl+dOMECOrJebe7WKHsI0k/jYcYISokZH4v3wvC8RXAhJL 9pxnhrBFJV4+/scK8YmVxM4XBxknMIrNQnLGLCRnzEJyxiwkZyxgZFnFKFacVJSZnlGSm5iZ k25gqJeRqZeZl1qyiRESIxk7GJfvVDnEKMDBqMTDy9Gn6S/EmlhWXJl7iFGSg0lJlNc7X8tf iC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjBAezkghvohNQjjclsbIqtSgfJiXDwaEkwTsFpE2wKDU9tSIt MweYCGDSTBycIO08QO1HQWp4iwsSc4sz0yHypxglpcR5d4IkBEASGaV5cL2vGMWBjhTmfQyS 5QGmLLiuV0ADmYAGMlhoggwsSURISTUwKpjHd0+K/flEeNLLZU86Hm6xmS/yf23xBOFJfrJr mPRkbyzmWzwrfuLdT06nEv5dlV/ZyBazi/3qm9yzNo+e7onWjK/7n3fYfVfYnO1OKfs01ZwY 973ue7iwXepAX95CycwlWp21Yvsz5OZvsJ23XGFyTrDA1ItT7l0suXKyJnR91uTVUYVezEos xRmJhlrMRcWJAAB+wFYWAwAA References: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:15:10 -0000 Hi Dan, I guess that for the document the most relevant question is really = number 1, if there is a need to standardize the representation of a domain = sequence (vs the set of Inter-domain Links or set of Border nodes). Questi= ons 2 and 3 are not yet decided, as they apply for a specific solution, not= the concept. So, if the concept is OK (question 1), it can be mentioned in= the document. You can count with a yes from me for the first question. The= rest, let's see later. =D3scar >-----Mensaje original----- >De: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de >Daniel King >Enviado el: jueves, 02 de febrero de 2012 11:57 >Para: 'Ramon Casellas'; pce@ietf.org >Asunto: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to >draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) > >Hi Ramon, All, > >We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to inclu= de >"gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual >though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments >are clearly required. The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is >interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctl= y >has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. > >So my first few questions would be: > >1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence >representation? If so, then I agree draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicabi= lity is >a viable candidate to document the requirements. > >2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? > >3. Should we adopt as a WG document? > >If we can answer "yes" to all questions, then I would have no problem >referencing the document in draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability. > >Br, Dan. > >-----Original Message----- >From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Ramon Casellas >Sent: 01 February 2012 15:53 >To: pce@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version of draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicabili= ty >(02) > >Dear all, Dan > >El 16/01/2012 21:18, Daniel King escribi=F3: >> 3. Are we missing any PCE technology, mechanisms, protocol extensions? >> So far I think we have touched on the following technologies in the >document: >(snip) >Let me just mention Dhruv's draft on domain sequence encoding. It touches = a >quite concrete aspect on domain sequences but I believe it is relevant > >Caveat emptor: Yours truly is a co-author. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: >> draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt > >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >_______________________________________________ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From ramon.casellas@cttc.es Thu Feb 2 03:32:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFF221F85E7 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:32:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gew7ANKTVpD0 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:32:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from Scorpius.cttc.es (scorpius.cttc.es [84.88.62.197]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8843421F85E6 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from castor (postfix@castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196]) by Scorpius.cttc.es (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q12BW2ZY022780; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:32:08 +0100 Received: from [84.88.63.149] (wlan-149.cttc.es [84.88.63.149]) by castor (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4542FC267; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:32:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F2A7433.3030100@cttc.es> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:32:03 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas Organization: CTTC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120130 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel King References: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (castor); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:32:03 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 84.88.62.197 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:32:20 -0000 On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual > though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is > interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R From dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Thu Feb 2 04:58:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E4921F8984 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:58:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sm17yNE72hqb for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE33121F8981 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYR00IHDNZKWH@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYR00F5WNZKAM@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGT83604; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:18 +0800 Received: from SZXEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.152) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:57:07 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml413-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:58:04 +0800 Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:27:07 +0530 From: dhruv In-reply-to: <4F2A7433.3030100@cttc.es> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'Ramon Casellas' , 'Daniel King' Message-id: <000301cce1aa$2c0903e0$841b0ba0$%dhody@huawei.com> Organization: HTIPL MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AczhnmCtQGkWI7MUTT6b2c7272srgwACr9aA X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <004801cce199$70435ad0$50ca1070$@olddog.co.uk> <4F2A7433.3030100@cttc.es> Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:58:37 -0000 Dear Dan, Ramon and All, A new update of the draft is on the way which will close all open issues. I will hope for WG adoption after that. Bunch of other inter-domain effort in WG (HPCE, P2MP, etc) already references this document. As the role of "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability" to cover inter-domain applicability in a broad sense, IMHO, this work could be included/referenced now or in later stage. Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As usual > though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is > interesting, but the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From daniel@olddog.co.uk Thu Feb 2 07:21:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FB821F85A5 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cH6ZUUyywvjk for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA0121F85A4 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:21:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12FL8KF003829; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:21:09 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12FL6hb003797; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:21:07 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: , "'Ramon Casellas'" Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <00aa01cce1be$45be7f90$d13b7eb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Aczhvfw4wZMkqtoUQ/2mktZtNPzWSA== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:20 -0000 Cool, thanks Dhruv. Can I suggest that when you submit the new version of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence, you also propose some text for draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, that describes the motivation/scope/requirements for the domain sequence representation/encoding. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: dhruv [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] Sent: 02 February 2012 12:57 To: 'Ramon Casellas'; 'Daniel King' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) Dear Dan, Ramon and All, A new update of the draft is on the way which will close all open issues. I will hope for WG adoption after that. Bunch of other inter-domain effort in WG (HPCE, P2MP, etc) already references this document. As the role of "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability" to cover inter-domain applicability in a broad sense, IMHO, this work could be included/referenced now or in later stage. Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As > usual though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol > developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is interesting, but > the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Feb 2 09:06:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA60C21F8573 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:06:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJ1WRDsUczN6 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58EF21F8570 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12H6VYd006639 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:06:31 GMT Received: from 950129200 (cust.static.46-14-88-124.swisscomdata.ch [46.14.88.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q12H6USG006618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:06:31 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:06:29 -0000 Message-ID: <0d1401cce1cd$026a7be0$073f73a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQERRQTzAs0t6BNGA5j3tCsjzg6055ehDZsg Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:06:33 -0000 With AD hat very clearly*off*, but as someone who cares a lot about PCE... Yes, I think this work is in scope, fits into the architecture, and is of interest. It should be adopted. I think that the substance of the discussion that the WG needs to have as this I-D moves forward needs to be around the specific use case and the impact of the state on the operational aspects of the PCE and the network. We have previously found that scoping the PCE work to well-understood and contained problem spaces (while keeping one eye on extensibility and future potential) has made our work concrete and functional. This I-D certainly sets out a case for a specific application. I also the way the current draft puts some into scoping the amount of state and the rate of churn. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP > Vasseur > Sent: 02 February 2012 08:14 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document > > Dear all, > > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more > discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in > favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. > > JP and Julien. > > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From ramon.casellas@cttc.es Thu Feb 2 10:28:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736CD21F84F4 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:28:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hW9YVgZTZyi9 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from Scorpius.cttc.es (scorpius.cttc.es [84.88.62.197]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A4B21F84F3 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from castor (postfix@castor.cttc.es [84.88.62.196]) by Scorpius.cttc.es (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q12ISXf8027078 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:28:39 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (62.57.44.55.dyn.user.ono.com [62.57.44.55]) by castor (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61C52FC25A for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:28:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F2AD5CC.3090506@cttc.es> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:28:28 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (castor); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:28:34 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 84.88.62.197 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:28:51 -0000 El 02/02/2012 9:14, JP Vasseur escribió: > Dear all, > > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. Dear PCErs I share Adrian's comments. The stateless PCE as a functional component of a control plane is well understood and I think that, in view of potential & new use cases such as software defined networks/openflow and other control & management schemes, there is room to take the PCE a step further, not necessarily tied to a GMPLS control plane. I cannot comment on the concrete, technical details of the draft itself yet, as I just read it globally (I plan to read it carefully when time permits, most surely before Paris). To be clear, yes I support the adoption of the draft. However, as a minor comment, the stateful PCE is briefly covered in RFC4655, and in more depth in sections 2-5 of crabbe's draft, but I wonder (I am really not sure myself) whether we would need to split it and consider first, a more detailed architecture, functional requirements/framework, use cases (i.e. no signaling, direct vertical configuration of the forwarding state) and architecture, and once agreed on those, propose protocol extensions. Is the stateful PCE a wide enough topic to go this path? The draft seems to bundle a full solution :) -- I guess this is more an open question rather than a comment on the draft itself Thanks R. -- Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. Research Associate - Optical Networking Area -- http://wikiona.cttc.es CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 -- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01 From dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Thu Feb 2 21:55:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9E521F865F for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:55:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EKtxH7Rn0Vb for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DBC21F865D for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYS00GGNZ10FS@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:53:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYS00DBGZ0RSX@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:53:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGU32726; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:53:23 +0800 Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:52:58 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:53:12 +0800 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:23:11 +0530 From: dhruv In-reply-to: <00aa01cce1be$45be7f90$d13b7eb0$@olddog.co.uk> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'Daniel King' , 'Ramon Casellas' Message-id: <002801cce238$1d5e7f80$581b7e80$%dhody@huawei.com> Organization: HTIPL MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Aczhvfw4wZMkqtoUQ/2mktZtNPzWSAAedfHw X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <00aa01cce1be$45be7f90$d13b7eb0$@olddog.co.uk> Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:55:29 -0000 Dear Dan, Once I submit the new version of my draft, I will send you the suggested text for "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability". Both of which will be done by next week. Thanks! Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: Daniel King [mailto:daniel@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:51 PM To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com; 'Ramon Casellas' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 Cool, thanks Dhruv. Can I suggest that when you submit the new version of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence, you also propose some text for draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, that describes the motivation/scope/requirements for the domain sequence representation/encoding. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: dhruv [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com] Sent: 02 February 2012 12:57 To: 'Ramon Casellas'; 'Daniel King' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) Dear Dan, Ramon and All, A new update of the draft is on the way which will close all open issues. I will hope for WG adoption after that. Bunch of other inter-domain effort in WG (HPCE, P2MP, etc) already references this document. As the role of "draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability" to cover inter-domain applicability in a broad sense, IMHO, this work could be included/referenced now or in later stage. Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability) On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Ramon, All, > > We can widen the draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability scope to include > "gaps", one of which may include domain sequence representation. As > usual though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol > developments are > clearly required. Dear Dan, all You are right that draft-dhody should be included / referenced if/when it becomes a wg document. I will let Dhruv comment on the issues as I was not in Taipei, IIRC, there were some past emails on its need?. For what is worth, I personally think that what is addressed in the draft (i.e., the need to encode sequences, the need to constrain them and the need to convey some order semantics) is needed. I won't be so bold to state whether the current encoding / solution is to be retained :-), at least yet, and we can allow some time to mature. If I may, what is your view on this? Do you think it is addressing a non-issue? > The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is interesting, but > the document is not a WG draft and if I remember correctly > has multiple open issues/options that need to be distilled. I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv? > > 1. Does the working group need to standardise domain sequence > representation? If so, then I agree FWIW, I say yes. A personal use case is a constrain in the H-PCE computation (IRO + order semantics). I bought Dhruv's idea that working with domains is more flexible than working with PCE_IDs (both in hpce, and md-p2mp ) > 2. Is draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence a suitable solution? If it isn't we would gladly address what is needed :). > 3. Should we adopt as a WG document? Until now, I have not considered requesting adoption. Personally, I can wait until it is further discussed and matures. Thanks for your comments R _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From zhangfatai@huawei.com Thu Feb 2 23:48:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BEE21F8497 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UzX+ReR6ifZY for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:48:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0410E21F8491 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYT00ADA4CM9H@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:48:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYT000Y64CMCX@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:48:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGU47434; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:48:22 +0800 Received: from SZXEML415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) by szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:47:49 +0800 Received: from SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.252]) by szxeml415-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.154]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:48:39 +0800 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:48:09 +0000 From: Zhangfatai In-reply-to: <4F2AD5CC.3090506@cttc.es> X-Originating-IP: [10.70.76.157] To: Ramon Casellas , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Thread-index: AQHM4diKAO5I3MzZz0+XeP5IEQvSuZYqxtgw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <4F2AD5CC.3090506@cttc.es> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:48:26 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rICJzdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UiIGlzIHZlcnkgaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcgd29y ayBhbmQgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhpcyB3b3JrIG1vdmUgZm9yd2FyZC4NCg0K QXMgQWRyaWFuIHBvaW50ZWQgb3V0IHRoYXQgdGhpcyBJLUQgY2VydGFpbmx5IHNldHMgb3V0IGEg Y2FzZSBmb3IgYSBzcGVjaWZpYyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbiwgdGhpcyBJLUQgbWFpbmx5IGZvY3VzZXMg b24gdGhlIFBDRVAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgYSBzcGVjaWZpYyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi4NCg0KSSB3 b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGZvbGxvdyB3aGF0IFJhbW9uIHNhaWQuIA0KDQpXZSBrbm93IHRoYXQgdGhl cmUgd2VyZSBsb3RzIG9mIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBvciBkb3VidHMgb24gc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFIHdoZW4g c29tZW9uZSBwcm9wb3NlZCB0byBzdGFydCBzdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgKG9yIHJlbGF0ZWQpIHdvcmsg aXRlbSBiZWZvcmUuDQoNClRoZXJlZm9yZSwgSSB0aGluayB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBkZWxp Y2F0ZSBkb2N1bWVudCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSB0aGUgc2NlbmFyaW9zLCBhcHBsaWNhYmlsaXR5LCBy ZXF1aXJlbWVudHMsIGFuZCB0aGVuIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZSBwb3RlbnRpYWwgUENFUCBleHRlbnNp b25zIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBmb3Igc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFLiBMYXN0bHksIHdlIGNhbiBoYXZlIGFu b3RoZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBkb2N1bWVudCBsaWtlIHRoaXMgSS1EIHRvIGRlc2Ny aWJlIHRoZSBQQ0VQIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMuDQoNCklmIHRoZSBXRyB0aGluayB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIHJp Z2h0IHRpbWUgdG8gYWRvcHQgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCwgcGxlYXNlIGNvdW50ICJ5ZXMiIGZyb20gbWUg dG8gc3VwcG9ydCB0aGlzIGFkb3B0aW9uLg0KDQoNClRoYW5rcw0KwqANCkZhdGFpDQoNCg0KLS0t LS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IHBjZS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWls dG86cGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBSYW1vbiBDYXNlbGxhcw0KU2Vu dDogMjAxMuW5tDLmnIgz5pelIDI6MjgNClRvOiBwY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBb UGNlXSBBZG9wdGluZyBkcmFmdC1jcmFiYmUtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0wMiBhcyBhIFBDRSBX RyBkb2N1bWVudA0KDQpFbCAwMi8wMi8yMDEyIDk6MTQsIEpQIFZhc3NldXIgZXNjcmliacOzOg0K PiBEZWFyIGFsbCwNCj4NCj4gVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBoYXMgYmVlbiBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdHdpY2Ug YW5kIGNlcnRhaW5seSBzdGlsbCBkZXNlcnZlcyBtb3JlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24sIGJ1dCBpdCBzZWVt cyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGVub3VnaCBpbnRlcmVzdCB0byBwb2xsIHRoZSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3Vw DQo+IGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbi4gUGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93IGJ5IEZlYiAxOXRoIG5vb24g RVQsIHdoZXRoZXIgeW91IGFyZSBpbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWNy YWJiZS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQoNCkRlYXIgUENFcnMNCg0K SSBzaGFyZSBBZHJpYW4ncyBjb21tZW50cy4gVGhlIHN0YXRlbGVzcyBQQ0UgYXMgYSBmdW5jdGlv bmFsIGNvbXBvbmVudCANCm9mIGEgY29udHJvbCBwbGFuZSBpcyB3ZWxsIHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgYW5k IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCwgaW4gdmlldyBvZiANCnBvdGVudGlhbCAmICBuZXcgdXNlIGNhc2VzIHN1 Y2ggYXMgc29mdHdhcmUgZGVmaW5lZCBuZXR3b3Jrcy9vcGVuZmxvdyANCmFuZCBvdGhlciBjb250 cm9sICYgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBzY2hlbWVzLCB0aGVyZSBpcyByb29tIHRvIHRha2UgdGhlIFBDRSBh IA0Kc3RlcCBmdXJ0aGVyLCBub3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgdGllZCB0byBhIEdNUExTIGNvbnRyb2wg cGxhbmUuDQoNCkkgY2Fubm90IGNvbW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIGNvbmNyZXRlLCB0ZWNobmljYWwgZGV0 YWlscyBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaXRzZWxmIA0KeWV0LCBhcyBJIGp1c3QgcmVhZCBpdCBnbG9iYWxs eSAoSSBwbGFuIHRvIHJlYWQgaXQgY2FyZWZ1bGx5IHdoZW4gdGltZSANCnBlcm1pdHMsIG1vc3Qg c3VyZWx5IGJlZm9yZSBQYXJpcykuDQoNClRvIGJlIGNsZWFyLCB5ZXMgSSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBh ZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQuDQoNCkhvd2V2ZXIsIGFzIGEgbWlub3IgY29tbWVudCwgdGhl IHN0YXRlZnVsIFBDRSBpcyBicmllZmx5IGNvdmVyZWQgaW4gDQpSRkM0NjU1LCBhbmQgaW4gbW9y ZSBkZXB0aCBpbiBzZWN0aW9ucyAyLTUgb2YgY3JhYmJlJ3MgZHJhZnQsIGJ1dCBJIA0Kd29uZGVy IChJIGFtIHJlYWxseSBub3Qgc3VyZSBteXNlbGYpIHdoZXRoZXIgd2Ugd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBz cGxpdCBpdCANCmFuZCBjb25zaWRlciBmaXJzdCwgYSBtb3JlIGRldGFpbGVkIGFyY2hpdGVjdHVy ZSwgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCANCnJlcXVpcmVtZW50cy9mcmFtZXdvcmssIHVzZSBjYXNlcyAoaS5lLiBu byBzaWduYWxpbmcsIGRpcmVjdCB2ZXJ0aWNhbCANCmNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGZvcndh cmRpbmcgc3RhdGUpIGFuZCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUsIGFuZCBvbmNlIGFncmVlZCANCm9uIHRob3Nl LCBwcm9wb3NlIHByb3RvY29sIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMuICBJcyB0aGUgc3RhdGVmdWwgUENFIGEgd2lk ZSANCmVub3VnaCB0b3BpYyB0byBnbyB0aGlzIHBhdGg/IFRoZSBkcmFmdCBzZWVtcyB0byBidW5k bGUgYSBmdWxsIHNvbHV0aW9uIA0KOikgLS0gSSBndWVzcyB0aGlzIGlzIG1vcmUgYW4gb3BlbiBx dWVzdGlvbiByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBhIGNvbW1lbnQgb24gdGhlIA0KZHJhZnQgaXRzZWxmDQoNClRo YW5rcw0KUi4NCg0KDQotLSANClJhbW9uIENhc2VsbGFzLCBQaC5ELg0KUmVzZWFyY2ggQXNzb2Np YXRlIC0gT3B0aWNhbCBOZXR3b3JraW5nIEFyZWEgLS0gaHR0cDovL3dpa2lvbmEuY3R0Yy5lcw0K Q1RUQyAtIENlbnRyZSBUZWNub2zDsmdpYyBkZSBUZWxlY29tdW5pY2FjaW9ucyBkZSBDYXRhbHVu eWEsIFBNVCBFZCBCNA0KQXYuIENhcmwgRnJpZWRyaWNoIEdhdXNzLCA3IC0gMDg4NjAgQ2FzdGVs bGRlZmVscyAoQmFyY2Vsb25hKSAtIFNwYWluDQpUZWwuOiArMzQgOTMgNjQ1IDI5IDAwIC0tIEZh eC4gKzM0IDkzIDY0NSAyOSAwMQ0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0K From harai@nict.go.jp Mon Feb 6 03:28:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D861421F85C3; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:28:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.722 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBNPaWdRRPRb; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mow.securemx.jp (mow300.securemx.jp [210.130.202.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF33221F85B1; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:28:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mow.securemx.jp (mow300) id q16BS2Av020009; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:02 +0900 X-MXL-Hash: 4f2fb941248945ed-da02098e01249877b6d5fdbe0f7bb19ed94c371e Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [133.243.3.2]) by relay.securemx.jp (mx-mr302) id q16BS1eN011859 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:01 +0900 Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id q16BS0TP026123; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id q16BS0ER012352; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id q16BS0Gw012348; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 64DED169C6; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (skigoggle.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.51]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 5E79016054; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:28:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:27:19 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20120206.202719.2135711079242187783.harai@nict.go.jp> To: ccamp@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org From: Hiroaki Harai X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Cc: iPOP2012-tpc-sec@pilab.jp Subject: [Pce] (submission deadline Feb 14) iPOP2012 Call for Presentation X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:28:06 -0000 KEFwb2xvZ2llcyBpZiB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZWQgbXVsdGlwbGUgY29waWVzIG9mIHRoaXMgbWVzc2Fn ZS4pDQoNCkRlYXIgQ0NBTVAsIFBDRSBhbmQgTVBMUyBzdWJzY3JpYmVycywNCg0KUGxlYXNlIGZp bmQgaVBPUDIwMTIgQ2FsbCBmb3IgUHJlc2VudGF0aW9uLiAgVGhlIGRlYWRsaW5lIGZvcg0Kc3Vi bWl0dGluZyBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gcHJvcG9zYWwgKDEtcGFnZSBhYnN0cmFjdCkgaXMgRmVicnVh cnkgMTV0aCwNCjIwMTIuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCkhpcm9ha2kgSGFyYWkNClRQQyBDby1D aGFpciBmb3IgaVBPUCAyMDEyDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICBDYWxsIGZvciBQcmVzZW50YXRpb24NCg0KOHRoIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBv biBJUCArIE9wdGljYWwgTmV0d29yayAoaVBPUCAyMDEyKQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIE1heSAzMSAtIEp1bmUgMSwgMjAxMg0KICAgICBIaXlvc2hpIENhbXB1cywgS2VpbyBVbml2 ZXJzaXR5LCBZb2tvaGFtYS1zaGksIEthbmFnYXdhLCBKYXBhbg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg aHR0cDovL3d3dy5waWxhYi5qcC9pcG9wMjAxMi8NCg0KVGhlIGNvbmZlcmVuY2UgaXMgaW50ZW5k ZWQgdG8gc2hhcmUgYW1vbmcgdGhlIGluZHVzdHJ5IGFuZCB0aGUgYWNhZGVtaWEsDQp0aGUga25v d2xlZGdlLCBuZXcgZmluZGluZ3MsIGFuZCBleHBlcmllbmNlIG9uIHRoZSBzdGF0ZS1vZi10aGUg YXJ0IG9mDQpJUCBhbmQgb3B0aWNhbCBuZXR3b3JraW5nIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4gSXQgZmVhdHVy ZXMgdGVjaG5pY2FsIHNlc3Npb25zDQphbmQgcGxhbm5lZCBleGhpYml0aW9ucy4gVGhlIG9wcG9y dHVuaXR5IHRvIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRlIGlzIG9wZW4gdG8gYWxsLg0KDQpJbXBvcnRhbnQgRGF0ZXM6 DQpTdWJtaXNzaW9uIGRlYWRsaW5lIG9mIG9uZS1wYWdlIGFic3RyYWN0OiBGZWJydWFyeSAxNSwg MjAxMiANCk5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBhY2NlcHRhbmNlOiBNYXJjaCAzMCwgMjAxMg0KU3VibWlz c2lvbiBkZWFkbGluZSBvZiBmaW5hbCBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gc2xpZGVzOiBBcHJpbCAyMCwgMjAx Mg0KDQpUaGUgVGVjaG5pY2FsIFByb2dyYW0gQ29tbWl0dGVlIGZvciBpUE9QIDIwMTIgaXMgc29s aWNpdGluZyBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gDQpwcm9wb3NhbHMgZm9yIHRoaXMgY29uZmVyZW5jZS4gUHJv dG9jb2wgZGVzaWduLCBleHBlcmltZW50LCB0aGVvcnksIA0KaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24sIGFuZCBv cGVyYXRpb25hbCBleHBlcmllbmNlcyBhcmUgc29saWNpdGVkLg0KVGhlIHRvcGljcyBvZiB0aGUg Y29uZmVyZW5jZSB3aWxsIGluY2x1ZGUgYnV0IG5vdCBiZSBsaW1pdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dp bmc6DQoNCiogUGhvdG9uaWMgTmV0d29yayBmb3IgTnhHTiBhbmQgTndHTg0KKiBNdWx0aS1sYXll ciBuZXR3b3JrIChNTE4pIC8gTXVsdGktcmVnaW9uIG5ldHdvcmsgKE1STikNCiogSW50ZXItYXJl YS9JbnRlci1BUyBuZXR3b3JrDQoqIFdhdmVsZW5ndGggU3dpdGNoZWQgT3B0aWNhbCBOZXR3b3Jr cyAoV1NPTiksIFJvdXRpbmcgd2F2ZWxlbmd0aCBhc3NpZ25tZW50LA0KICBJbXBhaXJtZW50IG1h bmFnZW1lbnQNCiogR01QTFMvQVNPTiB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMNCiogR01QTFMgTmV0d29yayBtYW5h Z2VtZW50LCBPQSZNDQoqIEdNUExTLWNvbnRyb2xsZWQgRXRoZXJuZXQgTGFiZWwgU3dpdGNoaW5n IChHRUxTKSBhbmQgcmVsYXRlZCBFdGhlcm5ldA0KICB0cmFuc3BvcnQgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzDQoq IFBhdGggQ29tcHV0YXRpb24gRWxlbWVudCAoUENFKSwgVHJhZmZpYyBlbmdpbmVlcmluZw0KKiBB cHBsaWNhdGlvbiB3aXRoIGhpZ2gtYmFuZHdpZHRoIGRlbWFuZA0KKiBMMVZQTiwgQmFuZHdpZHRo IG9uIERlbWFuZCwgYW5kIFBob3RvbmljIEdyaWQNCiogTVBMUyBhbmQgRXRoZXJuZXQgbmV0d29y a2luZyBmb3IgSW50ZXItZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIgY29ubmVjdGl2aXR5IGZvciBjbG91ZA0KICBjb21w dXRpbmcNCiogQ2FycmllciBFdGhlcm5ldCBhbmQgTVBMUy1UUCBmb3IgYmFja2hhdWxpbmcNCiog VGVzdGJlZCwgZmllbGQgdHJpYWwNCg0KDQpJZiB5b3Ugd2lzaCB0byBzdWJtaXQgYSB0b3BpYyBm b3IgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiwgcGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgYW4gRXh0ZW5kZWQgDQpBYnN0cmFjdHMgb2Yg NDAwIHdvcmRzIGFuZCBhIG1heGltdW0gb2YgMSBwYWdlLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgZmlndXJlcyBhbmQg DQpkaWFncmFtcywgc3BlYWtlcqJzIG5hbWUsIGFmZmlsaWF0aW9uLCBhbmQgY29udGFjdCBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiANCnRvIHRoZSBUZWNobmljYWwgUHJvZ3JhbSBDb21taXR0ZWUgYXQgaXBvcDIwMTIt Q0ZQQHBpbGFiLmpwLg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlZSBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnBpbGFiLmpwL2lwb3AyMDEyLyBm b3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzLg0KDQpLaW5kIHJlZ2FyZHMsDQpIaXJvYWtpIEhhcmFpLCBKdWxpZW4g TWV1cmljLCBFaWppIE9raQ0KaVBPUCAyMDEyIFRQQyBDby1DaGFpcnMNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0N Cg0KLS0tLS0tLQ0KSGlyb2FraSBIYXJhaSwgUGguRC4gKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cubmljdC5nby5qcC8p DQpEaXJlY3RvciwgTmV0d29yayBBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUgTGFiLiwgUGhvdG9uaWMgTmV0d29yayBS ZXNlYXJjaCBJbnN0aXR1dGUNClJlc2VhcmNoIE1hbmFnZXIsIE5ldyBHZW5lcmF0aW9uIE5ldHdv cmsgUmVzZWFyY2ggTGFiLg0KTmF0aW9uYWwgSW5zdGl0dXRlIG9mIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFuZCBD b21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyBUZWNobm9sb2d5IChOSUNUKSwgSkFQQU4uDQpFbWFpbDogaGFyYWlAbmlj dC5nby5qcDsgIFBob25lOiArODEtNDItMzI3LTU0MTg7ICBGQVg6ICs4MS00Mi0zMjctNjY4MA0K From julien.meuric@orange.com Mon Feb 6 05:16:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B991421F863B for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:16:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.427, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y0MnTQx7aBg5 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC6121F860E for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DC1CD16C004 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:16:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39BF16C003 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:16:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:16:02 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.161] ([10.193.71.161]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:16:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4F2FD291.7000900@orange.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:16:01 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2012 13:16:02.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[798A3420:01CCE4D1] Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "LS358 - SG15 OTNT Standardization Work Plan -> pce" X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:16:04 -0000 Hi. It looks like this has not reached the PCE mailing list. Comments are welcome. Julien -------- Message original -------- Title: LS358 - SG15 OTNT Standardization Work Plan -> pce Submission Date: 2012-01-31 URL of the IETF Web page: /liaison/1141/ Please reply by 2012-08-27 From: ITU-T SG 15 (Greg Jones) To: Path Computation Element (jpv@cisco.com, julien.meuric@orange.com) Cc: yoichi.maeda@ttc.or.jp,steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com,pce@ietf.org,lear@cisco.com,Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com,stbryant@cisco.com,adrian@olddog.co.uk Reponse Contact: tsbsg15@itu.int,greg.jones@itu.int,hiroshi.ota@itu.int Technical Contact: koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp Purpose: For comment Body: Thank you for your previous review and comments for “Optical Transport Networks& Technologies Standardization Work Planâ€. Attached is the updated version from this SG15 meeting (Geneva, 5-16 December 2011). This version reflects recent development of related standards and your valuable input. We appreciate your review of this latest version and comments. Attach: OTNT Standardization Work Plan, Issue 15 (TD553/PLEN Rev.1). Attachment(s): LS358 - SG15 OTNT Standardization Work Plan -> pce - pdf body https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1325.pdf LS358 - SG15 OTNT Standardization Work Plan -> pce - pdf attach https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1326.pdf From zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Mon Feb 6 18:03:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F44921F86F9; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:03:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.620, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k1rRc1CAOUzn; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AE521F86F8; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 566903280467362; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:37:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.4222157150; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:03:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q1723MV2082807; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:03:22 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> To: JP Vasseur MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: B8D9CCB6:DD03D73C-4825799D:000A3D41; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:03:20 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-07 10:03:23, Serialize complete at 2012-02-07 10:03:23 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000B4AC84825799D_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q1723MV2082807 Cc: pce-bounces@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:03:40 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000B4AC84825799D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 KzENCg0Kc3VwcG9ydA0KDQpCVFcsIEkgcmVtZW1iZXIgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhbm90aGVyIGRy YWZ0IGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyANCmZyb21pbmcgR01QTFMsIGRyYWZ0LXRh bmctcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS0wMi50eHQsIG1heWJlIHRoZSB1c2VjYXNlcyBjYW4gDQpiZSBj b21iaW5lZA0KdG9nZXRoZXIuIEZ1cnRoZXJtb3JlLCBkbyB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIHJlY2hhcnRlciB0 aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgUENFIFdHIHRvIA0KcmVmbGVjdCB0aGUgcmVsYXRlZCB3b3JrPw0KDQoNCkJl c3QgcmVnYXJkcw0KDQpGZWkNCg0KDQoNCkpQIFZhc3NldXIgPGpwdkBjaXNjby5jb20+IA0Kt6K8 /sjLOiAgcGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCjIwMTItMDItMDIgMTY6MTQNCg0KytW8/sjLDQpw Y2VAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCrOty80NCg0K1vfM4g0KW1BjZV0gQWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtY3JhYmJlLXBj ZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wY2UtMDIgYXMgYSBQQ0UgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkRlYXIg YWxsLA0KDQpUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGhhcyBiZWVuIHByZXNlbnRlZCB0d2ljZSBhbmQgY2VydGFp bmx5IHN0aWxsIGRlc2VydmVzIG1vcmUgDQpkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdGhhdCB0 aGVyZSBpcyBlbm91Z2ggaW50ZXJlc3QgdG8gcG9sbCB0aGUgV29ya2luZyANCkdyb3VwDQpmb3Ig V0cgYWRvcHRpb24uIFBsZWFzZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyBieSBGZWIgMTl0aCBub29uIEVULCB3aGV0 aGVyIHlvdSBhcmUgDQppbiBmYXZvci9vcHBvc2VkIG9mIGFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWNyYWJiZS1w Y2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlIGFzIGEgV0cgDQpkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KSlAgYW5kIEp1bGllbi4NCg0K SlAuDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNl IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFu L2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0KDQoNCg0K --=_alternative 000B4AC84825799D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPisxPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJy Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5zdXBwb3J0PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJy Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5CVFcsIEkgcmVtZW1iZXIgdGhhdCB0aGVy ZSBpcyBhbm90aGVyDQpkcmFmdCBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZnJvbWluZyBH TVBMUywgZHJhZnQtdGFuZy1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLTAyLnR4dCwNCm1heWJlIHRoZSB1c2Vj YXNlcyBjYW4gYmUgY29tYmluZWQ8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMt c2VyaWYiPnRvZ2V0aGVyLiBGdXJ0aGVybW9yZSwgZG8gd2UgbmVlZCB0bw0KcmVjaGFydGVyIHRo ZSBzY29wZSBvZiBQQ0UgV0cgdG8gcmVmbGVjdCB0aGUgcmVsYXRlZCB3b3JrPzwvZm9udD4NCjxi cj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+QmVzdCByZWdhcmRz PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5GZWk8L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9w Pg0KPHRkIHdpZHRoPTM2JT48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+SlAgVmFz c2V1ciAmbHQ7anB2QGNpc2NvLmNvbSZndDs8L2I+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0x IGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPreivP7IyzogJm5ic3A7cGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2Zv bnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+MjAxMi0wMi0wMiAxNjoxNDwv Zm9udD4NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD02MyU+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9w Pg0KPHRkPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1yaWdodD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+ ytW8/sjLPC9mb250PjwvZGl2Pg0KPHRkPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5w Y2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmln aHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPrOty808L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+ DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZh Y2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPtb3zOI8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9 InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPltQY2VdIEFkb3B0aW5nIGRyYWZ0LWNyYWJiZS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNl LTAyDQphcyBhIFBDRSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudDwvZm9udD48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlPg0K PHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dGQ+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0K PGJyPg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+RGVhciBhbGwsPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KVGhpcyBkb2N1 bWVudCBoYXMgYmVlbiBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdHdpY2UgYW5kIGNlcnRhaW5seSBzdGlsbCBkZXNlcnZl cyBtb3JlDQpkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBlbm91Z2ggaW50 ZXJlc3QgdG8gcG9sbCB0aGUgV29ya2luZw0KR3JvdXA8YnI+DQpmb3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24uIFBs ZWFzZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyBieSBGZWIgMTl0aCBub29uIEVULCB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSBhcmUNCmlu IGZhdm9yL29wcG9zZWQgb2YgYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtY3JhYmJlLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wY2Ug YXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpKUCBhbmQgSnVsaWVuLjxicj4NCjxicj4NCkpQ Ljxicj4NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fPGJy Pg0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdDxicj4NClBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGNlPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+ DQo= --=_alternative 000B4AC84825799D_=-- From Dave.Cooper@Level3.com Mon Feb 6 23:22:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9EC21F8523 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:22:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X05e8XM008-2 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv-det.globalcrossing.com (mailsrv-det.globalcrossing.com [64.208.159.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D239F21F8522 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from w8uspdyvs14.ams.gblxint.com (w8uspdyvs14.ams.gblxint.com [10.60.64.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailsrv.ams.gblxint.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03BAD9B62; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from W8USPDY131.ams.gblxint.com ([10.60.51.86]) by w8uspdyvs14.ams.gblxint.com ([fe80::c1cf:3337:9866:feff%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:22:48 -0500 From: "Cooper, Dave" To: JP Vasseur , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Thread-Index: AQHM4YKoVQM/NCBd+U2jeCyjdesDApYxDygw Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:22:47 +0000 Message-ID: <949A8A83ECD6D24395E1762F14487C8F080BEF15@w8uspdy131.ams.gblxint.com> References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.218.55.124] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:22:50 -0000 Hi JP,=20 I am in favor of WG adoption of this draft. -dave > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > JP Vasseur > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:14 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG > document >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves > more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the > Working Group for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, > whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful- > pce as a WG document. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From jpv@cisco.com Mon Feb 6 23:27:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347FC21F8535; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jO9sAoC3DBf; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FE921F8533; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=4757; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328599658; x=1329809258; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=Dq7UMN15e+akH3BxAqb6kevz3nJTM2AZd94FEuwrBOg=; b=mx69kV5ETpC2DZJYZAa7QOQpTtoU2dZn2E7nWxiCZVEIA6vl/JQWNWO4 oYqaql0sN16W6Q+GZHeWAalomz/OIlu1EBuPs4MYPxqW0K1ZgYmpS0oyw 2FdYGH0OGq70v3C5mLjH8546ZcTaNZzZP2SAprKaMRZdtBFo3kal7t4v8 Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG3RME+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDhQuqQIEFgXMBAQQBAQEPAVsLEAkCBEACJzAZIodjmmMBjF8IkiAEi1gIBgELAQgFAwMJBQwCgwkFGAILAgUQRyENL4IDN2MElSySXg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,375,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="128696114" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2012 07:27:36 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q177Rat5009351; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:27:36 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:27:36 +0100 Received: from ams-jvasseur-8916.cisco.com ([10.55.90.55]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:27:36 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF837D9B-C83D-4716-81A1-64B98FC51C11" From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:25:03 +0100 Message-Id: <4336D0B5-53DE-49D1-8022-8B7ABDCFD836@cisco.com> References: To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2012 07:27:36.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6B86C30:01CCE569] Cc: pce-bounces@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:27:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CF837D9B-C83D-4716-81A1-64B98FC51C11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Thanks - No stateful PCE is part of our charter as documented in RFC4655 = Section 6.8. Thanks. JP. On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:03 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: >=20 > +1=20 >=20 > support=20 >=20 > BTW, I remember that there is another draft addressing the = requirements froming GMPLS, draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt, maybe = the usecases can be combined=20 > together. Furthermore, do we need to recharter the scope of PCE WG to = reflect the related work?=20 >=20 >=20 > Best regards=20 >=20 > Fei=20 >=20 >=20 > JP Vasseur =20 > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: pce-bounces@ietf.org > 2012-02-02 16:14 >=20 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB > pce@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD > =D6=F7=CC=E2 > [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves = more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you = are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_CF837D9B-C83D-4716-81A1-64B98FC51C11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn = wrote:

+1

support

BTW, I remember that there is = another draft addressing the requirements froming GMPLS, = draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt, maybe the usecases can be combined
together. Furthermore, do we = need to recharter the scope of PCE WG to reflect the related work?


Best regards

Fei


JP Vasseur = <jpv@cisco.com>
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB:  pce-bounces@ietf.org

2012-02-02 16:14

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB
pce@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD
=D6=F7=CC=E2
[Pce] Adopting = draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document





Dear all,

This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group
for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document.

JP and Julien.

JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/pce

= --Apple-Mail=_CF837D9B-C83D-4716-81A1-64B98FC51C11-- From jpv@cisco.com Mon Feb 6 23:27:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A6D11E80E1; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69Co0jfW65U4; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61CF11E80B7; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 23:27:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=4757; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328599661; x=1329809261; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=DH4hUd+rD8MyIpGhZzX7P5mrRkI1DQPyNIvk2Zh9B/E=; b=LjQdkXiEWnFnHa3K5+gOQ6Bc+AMCfJAaCwiDgYwkxDXagfxG/qSzgFIC hWABS0FZEtOK3JLxqnIRKaDRHnAe9nEYjtxtsRoG2nMqQzOVFi306qUlb KManTr4Pbkbif3au6QODjNeGlWc8KNBda8mH4zykq69GhfrYlzp4oqrRY 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG3RME+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABDhQuqQIEFgXMBAQQBAQEPAVsLEAkCBEACJzAZIodjmmMBjF8IkiAEi1gIBgELAQgFAwMJBQwCgwkFGAILAgUQRyENL4IDN2MElSySXg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,375,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="128696116" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2012 07:27:40 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q177RecA012516; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:27:40 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:27:40 +0100 Received: from ams-jvasseur-8916.cisco.com ([10.55.90.55]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:27:39 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_34C6645E-C474-418F-8C4C-8A07C6FA6C22" From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:27:39 +0100 Message-Id: <475F205F-0F09-4F50-9866-512FCDE2C7BB@cisco.com> References: To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2012 07:27:39.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[F909FD50:01CCE569] Cc: pce-bounces@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:27:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_34C6645E-C474-418F-8C4C-8A07C6FA6C22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Thanks - No stateful PCE is part of our charter as documented in RFC4655 = Section 6.8. Thanks. JP. On Feb 7, 2012, at 3:03 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: >=20 > +1=20 >=20 > support=20 >=20 > BTW, I remember that there is another draft addressing the = requirements froming GMPLS, draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt, maybe = the usecases can be combined=20 > together. Furthermore, do we need to recharter the scope of PCE WG to = reflect the related work?=20 >=20 >=20 > Best regards=20 >=20 > Fei=20 >=20 >=20 > JP Vasseur =20 > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: pce-bounces@ietf.org > 2012-02-02 16:14 >=20 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB > pce@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD > =D6=F7=CC=E2 > [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves = more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you = are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_34C6645E-C474-418F-8C4C-8A07C6FA6C22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn = wrote:

+1

support

BTW, I remember that there is = another draft addressing the requirements froming GMPLS, = draft-tang-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt, maybe the usecases can be combined
together. Furthermore, do we = need to recharter the scope of PCE WG to reflect the related work?


Best regards

Fei


JP Vasseur = <jpv@cisco.com>
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB:  pce-bounces@ietf.org

2012-02-02 16:14

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB
pce@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD
=D6=F7=CC=E2
[Pce] Adopting = draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document





Dear all,

This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group
for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document.

JP and Julien.

JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/pce

= --Apple-Mail=_34C6645E-C474-418F-8C4C-8A07C6FA6C22-- From leeyoung@huawei.com Tue Feb 7 09:30:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D379E21F8882 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:30:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.566, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v74ZKPG05iRb for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE1E21F887D for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id ACZ86439; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from DFWEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:28:49 -0800 Received: from DFWEML508-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.149]) by dfweml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.203]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:28:39 -0800 From: Leeyoung To: JP Vasseur , "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Thread-Index: AQHM4YKzYw82sZRIqECfKfegAtko2pYxtAJw Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:28:39 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.130.79] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:30:43 -0000 Hi,=20 I support this work. And there are a few of things that I'd like to add.=20 1. When we re-charter, I'd like the WG to consider the "north-bound" PCE in= terface that would enable communication with "Application" layer. This may = be a deviation from the current PCE, but I think it may be worthwhile to ex= plore this option in the PCE WG. This would make the stateful PCE use case = more applicable to the real need to enable application interaction with TE = networks. Dhrov and I are working on a draft along this line and should be = available shortly.=20 2. I share the sentiment with Ramon and Fatai. The current draft is a solut= ion draft. What needs to be complemented on top of the current writing is m= otivation, high-level architecture, use cases at the minimum. This can be a= separate document or included in the current draft although I prefer the f= ormer.=20 3. The current draft talks about time-based scheduling capability. I think = this make a PCE really powerful. Architecturally, there needs to be a bit c= learer discussion as to how this would be different from NMS.=20 Thanks. Young -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Va= sseur Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:14 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG docume= nt Dear all, This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more di= scussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Gr= oup for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in= favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. JP and Julien. JP. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From igor@yahoo-inc.com Tue Feb 7 15:54:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D318321F873A for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFk8cVD4uM2m for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrout3.yahoo.com (mrout3.yahoo.com [216.145.54.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4558E21F8734 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.254.110]) by mrout3.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id q17NgPRx048846; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:42:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=cobra; t=1328658146; bh=RP1lidWamRz0DaRDFjmrVcdIj24qymzsV0RN4tchBVM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MqhsOV/sxlKg5nZLADqUTpVRWCkhxTFnHnOV7mFiN7Mb2Xw7Mkm40riNKrGyJ1Cu1 +Ic2NFEo5E+v1VWruCigH7rtv+23nZaC5A4N8TAy9ZpT/fpBl5e/XBrUrMLVmO93Vs TfV6ZLV6oxCG/wEIP7g9uQMaZpIfqePwwd3Hv+fY= Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:42:25 -0800 (PST) From: Igor Gashinsky X-X-Sender: igor@netops1.corp.bf1.yahoo.com To: "Cooper, Dave" In-Reply-To: <949A8A83ECD6D24395E1762F14487C8F080BEF15@w8uspdy131.ams.gblxint.com> Message-ID: References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <949A8A83ECD6D24395E1762F14487C8F080BEF15@w8uspdy131.ams.gblxint.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:54:40 -0000 +1 Thanks, -igor On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Cooper, Dave wrote: :: Hi JP, :: I am in favor of WG adoption of this draft. :: :: -dave :: :: > -----Original Message----- :: > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of :: > JP Vasseur :: > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:14 AM :: > To: pce@ietf.org :: > Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG :: > document :: > :: > Dear all, :: > :: > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves :: > more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the :: > Working Group for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, :: > whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful- :: > pce as a WG document. :: > :: > JP and Julien. :: > :: > JP. :: > _______________________________________________ :: > Pce mailing list :: > Pce@ietf.org :: > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce :: _______________________________________________ :: Pce mailing list :: Pce@ietf.org :: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce :: --------------------+----------------------+------------------ Igor Gashinsky | Network Architecture | Yahoo! Inc. igor@yahoo-inc.com | cell 917.807.2213 | Do You... Yahoo? --------------------+----------------------+------------------ From dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Tue Feb 7 22:52:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351D621F852B for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:52:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6gwrcfkoq4wR for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2A821F8527 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ2009LJB1MCJ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:51:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ200MWWB1MZ4@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:51:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml214-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGY05000; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:51:16 +0800 Received: from SZXEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) by szxeml214-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:50:36 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml422-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:51:03 +0800 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:21:02 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody In-reply-to: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'JP Vasseur' , pce@ietf.org Message-id: <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> Organization: HTIPL MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AQHM4YKzYw82sZRIqECfKfegAtko2pYxtAJwgADkVmA= X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:52:40 -0000 Hi All, Support this work! And I second the need for clear architecture and requirements drafts. Regards, Dhruv -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:59 PM To: JP Vasseur; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Hi, I support this work. And there are a few of things that I'd like to add. 1. When we re-charter, I'd like the WG to consider the "north-bound" PCE interface that would enable communication with "Application" layer. This may be a deviation from the current PCE, but I think it may be worthwhile to explore this option in the PCE WG. This would make the stateful PCE use case more applicable to the real need to enable application interaction with TE networks. Dhrov and I are working on a draft along this line and should be available shortly. 2. I share the sentiment with Ramon and Fatai. The current draft is a solution draft. What needs to be complemented on top of the current writing is motivation, high-level architecture, use cases at the minimum. This can be a separate document or included in the current draft although I prefer the former. 3. The current draft talks about time-based scheduling capability. I think this make a PCE really powerful. Architecturally, there needs to be a bit clearer discussion as to how this would be different from NMS. Thanks. Young -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:14 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Dear all, This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Group for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. JP and Julien. JP. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From robert@raszuk.net Wed Feb 8 01:04:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8157C21F8659 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:04:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B54XtPFAklVQ for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D331E21F8658 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4966 invoked by uid 399); 8 Feb 2012 09:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (83.9.121.123) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTP; 8 Feb 2012 09:04:27 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.9.121.123 Message-ID: <4F323A9C.8000009@raszuk.net> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:04:28 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JP Vasseur References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:04:31 -0000 Support. Thx, Robert. > Dear all, > > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG document. > > JP and Julien. > > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > From ogondio@tid.es Wed Feb 8 02:47:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C04621F84E7 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vANRkV67HEjP for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B753421F865A for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ20014PLYVOU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:47:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from tid (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id ED.85.02893.7B2523F4; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:47:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LZ20014MLYVOU@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:47:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from EXCLU2K7.hi.inet ([10.95.67.65]) by htcasmad1.hi.inet ([192.168.0.1]) with mapi; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:47:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:47:17 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= In-reply-to: <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> To: "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Thread-index: AQHM4YKzYw82sZRIqECfKfegAtko2pYxtAJwgADkVmCAAD63YA== acceptlanguage: es-ES, en-US X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7f2d6d000000b4d-51-4f3252b7ab15 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0t0eZORv8POHnkXT/RvsDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKWHdwH2NBE1fFjh+vWBsYWzm6GDk5JARMJCbe/soMYYtJXLi3 ng3EFhLYwCixayVPFyMXkP2NUeL3xxYmCKeRUWL18YVMIFUsAqoSp1efYgSx2QQcJNYt6gXr FhYIltjcPAkszilgL7Hn3AewDSICihLfb6wGquHg4BXwlOiZ6wMS5hUQlPgx+R4LiM0soCPR +/0bM4QtLjHn10RWCFtb4sm7C2A2o4CsxMrzpxkhRoZItE2bwgZhO0lsWHsWqkZG4v/yvSwQ jwlILNlzHupJUYmXj/+xQvyyhlHi8s5djBMYxWYhuWMWkjtmIbljFpI7FjCyrGIUK04qykzP KMlNzMxJNzDUy8jUy8xLLdnECImXjB2My3eqHGIU4GBU4uEtFDDwF2JNLCuuzD3EKMnBpCTK e83XyF+ILyk/pTIjsTgjvqg0J7X4EKMEB7OSCO/SIEN/Id6UxMqq1KJ8mJQMB4eSBK8cMLaF BItS01Mr0jJzgEkBJs3EwQnSzgPUrgpSw1tckJhbnJkOkT/FKCklzssDkhAASWSU5sH1vmIU BzpSmJcNJMsDTF9wXa+ABjIBDUxhArmnuCQRISXVwGh+X12hxyu73fqV762ZFeqOCz/OPbHg yc5PRos+3GO78v/kjWVPXYpdv8zO/m4aZqRhL5Ye/l/T+e2dGo7tP+9XTpcSdtIJfyb1MmDa oZsbPmvc7jUzOX90vaj+P17eDSnzp736oeB06vGuVHuVIxM65F9tkdELW5e/Om/lWuYJJ0+X 9R2afVlSiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAqq9ZLRwDAAA= References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:47:23 -0000 Hi all PCErs, I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 and sha= re the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we should sta= rt scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, application scena= rios and use cases from a broad perspective, with many inputs from service = providers, vendors and data center users (which are having more and more ne= twork needs). This draft is a very particular interesting solution, suited = for some specific cases, but by no means the basis of the stateful PCE. Fur= thermore, it looks weird to have a WG stateful PCE document without being t= he stateful PCE in the charter. Thus, if everybody thinks that PCE is mature enough to start enteri= ng into more complex stuff, let's start building the basis of the stateful = PCE. And then, have solutions for the different environments/use cases. =D3scar Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From julien.meuric@orange.com Thu Feb 9 05:10:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8762021F8718 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:10:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.874 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7QkS34wvncZ for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6668F21F8636 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C602E3039A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:11:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4753EE303A7 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:11:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:10:34 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.161] ([10.193.71.161]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:10:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4F33C5C9.9060507@orange.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:10:33 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2012 13:10:33.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[34CE89F0:01CCE72C] Subject: [Pce] Reminder on IPR Declarations X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:10:40 -0000 Hi all. Please take the time to read the rules about disclosing intellectual property as expressed in RFC 3979 and athttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty. Your duties if you are aware of your IPR in IETF work are either to disclose it (or have your company disclose it), or to not participate in discussions or I-Ds which may be encumbered by the IPR. It is permissible for you to make an "interim" disclosure by notifying the mailing list that you believe there might be IPR associated with some work - this helps you continue with the work in the (hopefully short) time that it takes your company to make the full disclosure. Note that if you know of another party's IPR that might be relevant, you are strongly encouraged to file a third party disclosure. JP& Julien From julien.meuric@orange.com Thu Feb 9 05:40:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFB821F872A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.818 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoH7N5E-Wbvx for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD10421F86DC for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DEE3E3039E; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:41:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4341FE3039A; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:41:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:40:23 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.161] ([10.193.71.161]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:40:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4F33CCC6.9070207@orange.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:40:22 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2012 13:40:22.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F14D8F0:01CCE730] Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:40:24 -0000 Oscar (and others), Your point is not clear to me. On the one hand, I understand you support having some work on stateful PCE, hence adding it to our charter. On the other hand, the current question is *not* on a charter update, but on adopting a particular I-D as a PCE WG document. Therefore, could elaborate on where you are standing? "Interesting solution, suited for some specific cases" or "by no means the basis of the stateful PCE"? Moreover, be aware that tackling stateful PCE does not imply addressing the full stateful PCE problem space. Note that the proposed draft comes with a contained scope. Trying to widen our charter too much (e.g. Ramon mentioning "no signaling") is likely to face strong reluctance from the IESG. Cheers, Julien Le 08/02/2012 11:47, Oscar González de Dios a écrit : > Hi all PCErs, > > I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 and share the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we should start scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, application scenarios and use cases from a broad perspective, with many inputs from service providers, vendors and data center users (which are having more and more network needs). This draft is a very particular interesting solution, suited for some specific cases, but by no means the basis of the stateful PCE. Furthermore, it looks weird to have a WG stateful PCE document without being the stateful PCE in the charter. > > Thus, if everybody thinks that PCE is mature enough to start entering into more complex stuff, let's start building the basis of the stateful PCE. And then, have solutions for the different environments/use cases. > > Óscar > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > From jpv@cisco.com Thu Feb 9 05:48:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326BC21F8723 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:48:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BahynoVwXsCS for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B3921F871E for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:48:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=2897; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328795290; x=1330004890; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6Hjc1aHaR71orMl8I9jf6AuL05yephjIHrxEkuF1N9M=; b=RdzISfSqgWadd4PubhjHkhgmyH0VLoRzhWnQZIdyP2rxVEVHzg1r4swT NTrQNsPrXjJ/DwxOjI0tWNQzJ7juBVbTEFE5InTsboHFWbQgrIqB8K8rj 3W3EpN7CSpo1ZdIWiDTa6pSNqNjoNS8hKK6U9vgA/7USpBSEBl/jFG/wb Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAATOM0+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABEryWBB4FyAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsQCwsSNCciDgYBEhsHh1oJmnoBnn6LQhAGBAMXAgUFBQMDBwQHAgIbAQMIAQ0BA4MtBQZwAyOCYGMElTCSYw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,390,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="65763031" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2012 13:48:08 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q19Dm8x5021222; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:48:08 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:48:08 +0100 Received: from ams-jvasseur-8916.cisco.com ([10.55.90.55]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:48:08 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) From: JP Vasseur In-Reply-To: <4F33CCC6.9070207@orange.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:48:07 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <42FBA72D-3B2E-4C9C-914D-7B8833198756@cisco.com> References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> <4F33CCC6.9070207@orange.com> To: Julien Meuric , pce@ietf.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2012 13:48:08.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[747FD450:01CCE731] Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:48:11 -0000 On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > Oscar (and others), >=20 > Your point is not clear to me. On the one hand, I understand you = support having some work on stateful PCE, hence adding it to our = charter. On the other hand, the current question is *not* on a charter = update, but on adopting a particular I-D as a PCE WG document. > Therefore, could elaborate on where you are standing? "Interesting = solution, suited for some specific cases" or "by no means the basis of = the stateful PCE"? >=20 > Moreover, be aware that tackling stateful PCE does not imply = addressing the full stateful PCE problem space. Note that the proposed = draft comes with a contained scope. Trying to widen our charter too much = (e.g. Ramon mentioning "no signaling") is likely to face strong = reluctance from the IESG. >=20 I was about to comment along the exact same line. The question is indeed = whether or not the WG supports the adoption of this ID as a WG, which of = course implies that it is already part out of charter. The question of = re-chartering is a different question that we could discuss during the = PCE WG session in Paris. Thanks. JP. > Cheers, >=20 > Julien >=20 >=20 > Le 08/02/2012 11:47, Oscar Gonz=E1lez de Dios a =E9crit : >> Hi all PCErs, >>=20 >> I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 = and share the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we = should start scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, = application scenarios and use cases from a broad perspective, with many = inputs from service providers, vendors and data center users (which are = having more and more network needs). This draft is a very particular = interesting solution, suited for some specific cases, but by no means = the basis of the stateful PCE. Furthermore, it looks weird to have a WG = stateful PCE document without being the stateful PCE in the charter. >>=20 >> Thus, if everybody thinks that PCE is mature enough to start = entering into more complex stuff, let's start building the basis of the = stateful PCE. And then, have solutions for the different = environments/use cases. >>=20 >> =D3scar >>=20 >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede = consultar nuestra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo = electr=F3nico en el enlace situado m=E1s abajo. >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send = and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From ogondio@tid.es Thu Feb 9 06:01:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6159421F8741 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:01:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ajxzYJm0MomD for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from tidos.tid.es (tidos.tid.es [195.235.93.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E775D21F8729 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:01:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet [10.95.64.104]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ4009YMPLP38@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from tid (tid.hi.inet [10.95.64.10]) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 6A.29.02893.1A1D33F4; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LZ40084RPLTK9@tid.hi.inet> for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from EXCLU2K7.hi.inet ([10.95.67.65]) by htcasmad2.hi.inet ([192.168.0.2]) with mapi; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:05 +0100 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:04 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Gonz=E1lez_de_Dios?= In-reply-to: <42FBA72D-3B2E-4C9C-914D-7B8833198756@cisco.com> To: JP Vasseur , Julien Meuric , "pce@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document Thread-index: AcznMXXCCdJSuJTxTIWCBZqSFcCweAAACMog acceptlanguage: es-ES, en-US X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7f2d6d000000b4d-14-4f33d1a1c197 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupileLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0l140djf4PFbG4um+zfYHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVsWf9DMaC40oVs6e3sDUwHpbuYuTkkBAwkXg9Yz4LhC0mceHe erYuRi4OIYENjBKvv95nhnC+MUqsP/2NCcJpZJTo/bkCrIVFQFXixfx9zCA2m4CDxLpFvWwg trBAsMTm5kmMIDangK3Egi/9QM0cHCICmRKbH4iChHkFPCVeHJ3NDmELSvyYfA9sJLOAjkTv 92/MELa4xJxfE1khbG2JJ+8ugNmMArISK8+fBhsvIhAi0TZtChuEbSRx79YTRogaGYn/y/dC fSYgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rBC/7GWS6Lo6n2UCo9gsJHfMQnLHLCR3zEJyxwJGllWMYsVJRZnp GSW5iZk56QaGehmZepl5qSWbGCERk7GDcflOlUOMAhyMSjy8DQeN/IVYE8uKK3MPMUpyMCmJ 8vqfN/YX4kvKT6nMSCzOiC8qzUktPsQowcGsJMK74x9QOW9KYmVValE+TEqGg0NJgtcYGN1C gkWp6akVaZk5wLQAk2bi4ARp5wFq1wWp4S0uSMwtzkyHyJ9ilJQS5w0FSQiAJDJK8+B6XzGK Ax0pzHvmAlCWB5jA4LpeAQ1kAhqYwmQIMrAkESEl1cDo2MH34dRCh94rRcv0bh/z6BNgsJa0 jFX+LTX1dJpXcGHXS/f2q1fZOI8vNjvN2MjTdVS1pc/hxumn6p77OfuPLQpxu5/qn169OpB1 v038tbyymbsv3Lzbyv9U9cGu8OkSfxTfzt/cIl91tHhfrmw9+7EqDsbqL+ms8UV/WGcsvtPH qhObUarEUpyRaKjFXFScCABAbiXWHQMAAA== References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1720C7159A@dfweml508-mbs> <005301cce62e$067affb0$1370ff10$%dhody@huawei.com> <4F33CCC6.9070207@orange.com> <42FBA72D-3B2E-4C9C-914D-7B8833198756@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:01:09 -0000 Hi J.P., Julien, You are right, together with the answer to the question whether or = not the WG supports the adoption of this ID as a WG, we added our opinions = about the matter. So... answer to the question is yes. I like the solution, and the s= cope of the draft. Beyond that... As this draft touches the stateful PCE topic, we all= have more ideas about it and a wider scope. My opinion is that the scope o= f the stateful PCE is bigger than the scope of the draft. Thus, this draft = is not all the basis of the stateful PCE (is a part of it). That is why I s= aid it would be interesting for me to start discussing that, and make a goo= d and complete foundation of the stateful PCE, covering several use cases. I hope I have clarified the position... both in the question and in= the matter. =D3scar >-----Mensaje original----- >De: JP Vasseur [mailto:jpv@cisco.com] >Enviado el: jueves, 09 de febrero de 2012 14:48 >Para: Julien Meuric; pce@ietf.org; Oscar Gonz=E1lez de Dios >Asunto: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG >document > > >On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > >> Oscar (and others), >> >> Your point is not clear to me. On the one hand, I understand you support >having some work on stateful PCE, hence adding it to our charter. On the >other hand, the current question is *not* on a charter update, but on >adopting a particular I-D as a PCE WG document. >> Therefore, could elaborate on where you are standing? "Interesting >solution, suited for some specific cases" or "by no means the basis of th= e >stateful PCE"? >> >> Moreover, be aware that tackling stateful PCE does not imply addressing = the >full stateful PCE problem space. Note that the proposed draft comes with a >contained scope. Trying to widen our charter too much (e.g. Ramon >mentioning "no signaling") is likely to face strong reluctance from the IE= SG. >> > >I was about to comment along the exact same line. The question is indeed >whether or not the WG supports the adoption of this ID as a WG, which of >course implies that it is already part out of charter. The question of re- >chartering is a different question that we could discuss during the PCE WG >session in Paris. > >Thanks. > >JP. > >> Cheers, >> >> Julien >> >> >> Le 08/02/2012 11:47, Oscar Gonz=E1lez de Dios a =E9crit : >>> Hi all PCErs, >>> >>> I also support the work in draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 and= share >the main concerns. Although I do support the work, I think we should start >scoping the stateful PCE, looking at the architecture, application scenari= os and >use cases from a broad perspective, with many inputs from service provider= s, >vendors and data center users (which are having more and more network >needs). This draft is a very particular interesting solution, suited for s= ome >specific cases, but by no means the basis of the stateful PCE. Furthermore= , it >looks weird to have a WG stateful PCE document without being the stateful >PCE in the charter. >>> >>> Thus, if everybody thinks that PCE is mature enough to start en= tering >into more complex stuff, let's start building the basis of the stateful PC= E. And >then, have solutions for the different environments/use cases. >>> >>> =D3scar >>> >>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consulta= r >nuestra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el = enlace >situado m=E1s abajo. >>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send >>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at >>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pce mailing list >>> Pce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From shane@castlepoint.net Thu Feb 9 06:59:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D50721F8726 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:59:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSIXoUpXK2Uo for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992AD21F86F8 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:59:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 3AECD268063; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:59:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from host2.tcb.net (64.78.235.218 [64.78.235.218]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:59:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=64.78.235.218; client-port=55382; data-bytes=0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Shane Amante In-Reply-To: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:59:26 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9BD6BCC8-877F-40B9-BC1F-51D8EF2D8BC0@castlepoint.net> References: <84DC62F4-7691-4D76-8642-5A4F8F4790A6@cisco.com> To: JP Vasseur X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:59:29 -0000 I support adoption of this draft by the WG. In addition, I would be = happy to provide reviews of the document as it progresses. -shane On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:14 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > This document has been presented twice and certainly still deserves = more discussion, but it seems that there is enough interest to poll the = Working Group > for WG adoption. Please let us know by Feb 19th noon ET, whether you = are in favor/opposed of adopting draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce as a WG = document. >=20 > JP and Julien. >=20 > JP. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Thu Feb 9 20:37:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE7711E8081 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:37:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.891, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=0.114, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_SINGLETS=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQ1BLC0He8Wi for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0269221F84F9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ500AIWU6SS3@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ500EXBU6R15@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pce@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml210-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGT29646; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:39 +0800 Received: from SZXEML418-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) by szxeml210-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:05 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml418-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:18 +0800 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:07:17 +0530 From: Dhruv Dhody X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: pce@ietf.org Message-id: <004f01cce7ad$abd456c0$037d0440$%dhody@huawei.com> Organization: HTIPL MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_7ddiIG/mcW5OwxOCsXFRIw)" Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcznrasTMQoinMD8T3mpNAwSFB6yzA== X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:37:55 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_7ddiIG/mcW5OwxOCsXFRIw) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_UG6SVQQjXWGoAK4H40CbYQ)" --Boundary_(ID_UG6SVQQjXWGoAK4H40CbYQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear PCErs, We have updated the Domain Sequence draft and closed all open issues as discussed in the Taipei meeting. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/?includ e_text=1 This includes Domain Sequence Encoding, Boundary Nodes and Inter-AS links, Mode of operations and handling for all inter-domain path computation techniques. Request the WG to provide comments, We would hope the document would be considered for WG adoption. Regards, Dhruv, Udaya & Ramon **************************************************************************** *** Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, Ph. +91-9845062422 This e-mail and 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 contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! --Boundary_(ID_UG6SVQQjXWGoAK4H40CbYQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Dear PCErs,

 

We have updated the Domain Sequence draft and closed all open issues = as discussed in the Taipei meeting.

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pc= ep-domain-sequence/?include_text=3D1

 

This includes Domain Sequence Encoding, Boundary Nodes and Inter-AS = links, Mode of operations and handling for all inter-domain path = computation techniques.

 

Request the WG to provide comments, We would hope the document would = be considered for WG adoption.

 

Regards,

Dhruv, Udaya & Ramon

 

*****************= **************************************************************<= span lang=3DEN-IN = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#48484= 8'>
= Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, = Ph. +91-9845062422

This e-mail and 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 contained herein in any way = (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, = reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended = recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please = notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete = it!

 

= --Boundary_(ID_UG6SVQQjXWGoAK4H40CbYQ)-- --Boundary_(ID_7ddiIG/mcW5OwxOCsXFRIw) Content-type: text/html; name="Diff draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01_txt - draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02.htm" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename="Diff draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01_txt - draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02.htm" Diff: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt - draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02.txt
< draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt   draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02.txt >
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Standard Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies India Pvt
Expires: February 25, 2012 R. Casellas Expires: August 12, 2012 Ltd
R. Casellas
CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de
Telecomunicacions de Catalunya Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
August 24, 2011 February 9, 2012
Standard Representation Of Domain Sequence Standard Representation Of Domain Sequence
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02
Abstract Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
identified as a key requirement for P2P and P2MP scenarios. In this identified as a key requirement for P2P and P2MP scenarios. In this
context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common
sphere of address management or path computational responsibility sphere of address management or path computational responsibility
such as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems. This document such as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems. This document
specifies a standard representation of domain sequence that can be specifies a standard representation and encoding of a domain
utilized in all PCE deployment scenarios. sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains
traversed to reach the destination domain. This document also
defines new sub-objects to be used to encode domain identifiers.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2012.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2012.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Detail Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Detail Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Standard Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Standard Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Only AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Only Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3. Mix of AS and Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.4. PCE serving multiple domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.6. HPCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.7. Domain Seq V/s PCE Seq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.5.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.4. PCE serving multiple domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.6. HPCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5.7. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. New IRO Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2. Sub-Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 5441 [A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure A PCE may be used to compute end-to-end paths across multi-domain
to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering environments using a per-domain path computation technique [RFC5152].
Label Switched Paths] mentions - The so called backward recursive path computation (BRPC) mechanism
[RFC5441] defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute
inter-domain constrained (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain
and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed
from source to destination is known, either fixed by the network
operator or obtained by other means. For inter-domain point-to-
multi-point (P2MP) tree, [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] assumes the domain-
tree is known.
"The sequence of domains to be traversed is either administratively The list of domains in a point-to-point (P2P) path or a point-to-
predetermined or discovered by some means that is outside of the multi-point (P2MP) tree is usually a constraint in the path
scope of this document. The PCC MAY indicate the sequence of domains computation request. The PCE decouples the domain to determine the
to be traversed using the Include Route Object (IRO) defined in next PCE to forward the request.
[RFC5440] so that it is available to all PCEs."
This document proposes a standard way to represent domain sequence According to BRPC mechanism the PCC MAY indicate the sequence of
using IRO in various deployment scenarios. domains to be traversed using the Include Route Object (IRO) defined
in [RFC5440].
It further gives examples of various deployment scenario including This document proposes a standard way to represent and encode a
P2P, P2MP and HPCE. domain sequence using IRO in various deployment scenarios including
P2P, P2MP and Hierarchical PCE (HPCE) [PCE-HIERARCHY-FWK].
The domain sequence (the set of domains traversed to reach the The domain sequence (the set of domains traversed to reach the
destination domain) is either administratively predetermined or destination domain) is either administratively predetermined or
discovered by some means (H-PCE) that is outside of the scope of this discovered by some means (H-PCE) that is outside of the scope of this
document. Here the focus is only on a standard representation of the document. Here the focus is only on a standard representation of the
domain sequence in all possible scenarios. domain sequence in all possible scenarios.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
ABR: OSPF Area Border Router. Routers used to connect two IGP ABR: OSPF Area Border Router. Routers used to connect two IGP
areas. areas.
AS: Autonomous System. AS: Autonomous System.
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
ABR: OSPF Area Border Router. Routers used to connect two IGP ABR: OSPF Area Border Router. Routers used to connect two IGP
areas. areas.
AS: Autonomous System. AS: Autonomous System.
ASBR: Autonomous System Boundary Router. ASBR: Autonomous System Boundary Router.
BN: Boundary Node, Can be an ABR or ASBR. BN: Boundary Node, Can be an ABR or ASBR.
BRPC: Backward Recursive Path Computation BRPC: Backward Recursive Path Computation
Domain: Any collection of network elements within a common sphere of Domain: Any collection of network elements within a common sphere of
address management or path computational responsibility. Examples address management or path computational responsibility. Examples
of domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and of domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and
Autonomous Systems (ASs). Autonomous Systems (ASs).
Domain-Seq: The sequence of domains for a path. Domain-Seq: An ordered sequence of domains traversed to reach the
destination domain.
ERO: Explicit Route Object ERO: Explicit Route Object
H-PCE: Hierarchical PCE H-PCE: Hierarchical PCE
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing
protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS). to Intermediate System (IS-IS).
IRO: Include Route Object IRO: Include Route Object
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
P2P: Point-to-Point P2P: Point-to-Point
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
3. Detail Description 3. Detail Description
3.1. Domains 3.1. Domains
A domain is any collection of network elements within a common sphere A domain can be defined as a separate administrative or geographic
of address management or path computation responsibility. Examples environment within the network. A domain may be further defined as a
of domains include IGP areas or Autonomous Systems (ASes). To zone of routing or computational ability. Under these definitions a
uniquely identify a domain in the domain sequence both AS and Area-id domain might be categorized as an Antonymous System (AS) or an
is important. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area ( as per [RFC4726] and
[RFC4655]). To uniquely identify a domain in the domain sequence
both AS and Area-id is important.
3.2. Standard Representation 3.2. Domain-Sequence
The IRO (Include Route Object) is used to specify the domain sequence A domain-sequence is an ordered sequence of domains traversed to
that the computed inter-domain path MUST traverse. reach the destination domain. In this context a Domain could be an
Autonomous System (AS) or an IGP Area. Note that an AS can be
further made of multiple Area.
Domain Sequence can be applied as a constraint and carried in path
computation request to PCE(s). In case of HPCE [PCE-HIERARCHY-FWK]
Parent PCE MAY send the domain sequence as a result in path
computation reply.
In this context, ordered sequence is important, in a P2P path, the
domains listed appear in the order that they are crossed. In a P2MP
path, the domain tree is represented as list of domain sequences.
One main goal of the Domain-Sequence is to enable a PCE to select the
next PCE to forward the path computation request based on the domain
information.
A PCC or PCE MAY add an additional constraints covering which
Boundary Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border links (Inter-AS-link) MUST be
traversed while defining a domain sequence.
Thus a Domain-Sequence MAY be made up of one or more of -
o AS Number
o Area ID
o Boundary Node ID
o Inter-AS-Link Address
3.3. Standard Representation
The IRO (Include Route Object) [RFC5440] is an optional object used
to specify a set of specified network elements that the computed path
MUST traverse. [RFC5440] in its description of IRO does not
constrain the sub-objects to be in a given particular order. When
considering a domain sequence, the domain relative ordering is a
basic criterion and, as such, this document specifies a new IRO
object type.
We define a new type of IRO Object to define Domain Sequence.
IRO Object-Class is 10. IRO Object-Class is 10.
IRO Object-Type is 1. IRO Object-Type is TBD. (2 suggested value to IANA)
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// (Subobjects) // // (Subobjects) //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-objects: The IRO is made of sub-objects. Sub-objects: The IRO is made of sub-objects identical to the ones
defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC3477], where the IRO sub-
object type is identical to the sub-object type defined in the
related documents. Some new sub-objects related to Domain-Sequence
are also added in this document.
The following sub-object types are used. The following sub-object types are used.
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte) [RFC 3209] 1 IPv4 prefix
TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte) 2 IPv6 prefix
TBD OSPF Area id 4 Unnumbered Interface ID
TBD ISIS Area id 32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte)
TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
TBD OSPF Area id
TBD ISIS Area id
[RFC 3209] define 2 octet AS number. [RFC3209] defines sub-objects for IPv4, IPv6 and unnumbered Interface
To support 4 octet AS number [RFC4893] following subobject is defined: ID, which in the context of domain-sequence is used to specify
Boundary Node (ABR/ASBR) and Inter-AS-Links.
[RFC3209] also defines 2 octet AS number.
To support 4 octet AS number [RFC4893] following subobject is
defined:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS Id (4 bytes) | | AS Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Since the length of Area-id is different for OSPF and ISIS, we Since the length of Area-id is different for OSPF and ISIS, we
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Area Id (4 bytes) | | Area Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length if fixed. The length if fixed.
For ISIS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of For ISIS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
the Subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in ISIS by the Subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in ISIS by
ISO standard. The Length MUST be at least 4, and MUST be a multiple ISO standard [ISO 10589]. The Length MUST be at least 4, and MUST be
of 4. a multiple of 4.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// ISIS Area ID // // ISIS Area ID //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.3. Deployment Scenarios The above sub-objects in various combinations can be used to encode
the domain-sequence. When the domain-sequence is used as a
constraint in path computation request it is carried in IRO Domain
Sequence Object Type. The same sub-objects and their encoding can be
used in ERO and path reply message when the domain sequence is
computed from Parent PCE.
3.3.1. Only AS All other rules of PCEP objects and message processing is as per
Considering each AS to be made of a single area, in this scenario the [RFC5440].
area MAY be skipped in the domain sequence. The domain sequence
could be represented with just AS numbers.
+---------------------------------+ 3.4. Mode of Operation
|AS 200 |
| +------+ |
| | | |
+------------------------+ | | | +------+ |
| AS 100 | | +------+ | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | +-+-----+-+ | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | +-+-----+-+ | +------+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| |PCE | | | |PCE | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
+------------------------+ | |
+---------------------------------+
Both AS are made of Area 0. A domain sequence IRO object constraints or defines the domains
involved in a muti-domain path computation, typically involving two
or more collaborative PCEs.
This could be represented as <IRO> as: Consequently, a Domain-Sequence can be used:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ 1. by a PCE in order to discover or select the next PCE in a
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | collaborative path computation, such as in BRPC [RFC5441];
|Object | |Object As| |Object As|
|Header | |100 | |200 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ 2. by the Parent PCE to return the domain sequence when unknown,
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | this can further be an input to BRPC procedure;
|Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object As| |Object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 0 | |200 | |Area 0 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Area is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be able to
understand both notations.
3.3.2. Only Area 3. By a PCC (or PCE) to constraint the domains used in a H-PCE path
computation, explicitly specifying which domains to be expanded;
Consider a case where both end of LSP belong to different area but A domain sequence can have varying degrees on granularity; it is
within the same AS, this could be represented in domain sequence possible to have a domain sequence composed of, uniquely, AS
using the AREA sub-object. AS number MAYBE skipped. identifiers. It is also possible to list the involved areas for a
given AS.
In any case, the mapping between domains and responsible PCEs is not
defined in this document. It is assumed that a PCE that needs to
obtain a "next PCE" from a domain sequence is able to do so (e.g. via
administrative configuration, or discovery).
The following algorithm can be applied to select the next domain and,
if need be, the PCE responsible for that domain. Note the PCC select
the PCE(1) based on its own domain information.
START
Get the first Sub-Object S1 from the Domain-Sequence
IF S1's Type is Area (OSPF or ISIS)
IF S1's Domain is same as current PCE's Area
Remove S1 from Domain-Sequence and Goto START
ELSE
Find the next PCE based on S1's Area within the AS
ENDIF
ELSEIF S1's Type is AS (2 or 4 Byte)
IF S1's Domain is same as current PCE's AS
Remove S1 from Domain-Sequence and Goto START
ELSE
Get the next Sub-Object S2 from the Domain-Sequence
IF the S2 is NULL or S2's type is AS
Find the next PCE based on S1's Domain (AS) only
ELSEIF S1's Type is Area
Find the next PCE based on S1's Domain (AS)
and S2's Domain (Area)
ELSE
ENDIF
ENDIF
ENDIF
IF Domain-Sequence is empty or next PCE is not found
Send PCRep with NO-Path
ENDIF
If the Sub-Object is of other type representing Boundary Node or
Inter-As-Link, it is not used to select the next PCE, but used only
while applying BRPC or any other inter-domain procedure.
3.5. Examples
3.5.1. Inter-Area Path Computation
In an inter-area path computation where ingress and egress belong to
different IGP area, the domain sequence MAYBE represented using a
ordered list of AREA sub-objects. AS number MAYBE skipped, as area
information is enough to select the next PCE.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | | | | | |
| +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | |
| | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ |
| +--* + + | | | | +--* + + | | |
| | | +--+ | | | | +--+ |
| *--+ + + | | *--+ + + |
| | | | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ |
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
| +--+ | | | | +--+ | | |
| | | | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | | | |
| | | +--+ | | | | +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
| Area 1 | | Area 5 | | Area 1 | | Area 5 |
+------------------+ +--------------------+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
AS Number is 100. AS Number is 100.
Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation
This could be represented as <IRO> as: This could be represented as <IRO> as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 skipping to change at page 11, line 28
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |100 | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
AS is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be able to AS is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be able to
understand both notations. understand both notations.
3.3.3. Mix of AS and Area 3.5.2. Inter-AS Path Computation
In inter-AS case where an AS is further made up of multiple areas, In inter-AS path computation, where ingress and egress belong to
both AS number and area should be a part of domain sequence. different AS, the domain sequence is represented using an ordered
list of AS sub-objects. The domain sequence MAY further include
decomposed area information in AREA sub-objects.
3.5.2.1. Example 1
As shown in Figure 2, where AS to be made of a single area, the area
subobject MAY be skipped in the domain sequence as AS is enough to
uniquely identify the next domain and PCE.
+---------------------------------+
|AS 200 |
| +------+ |
| | | |
+------------------------+ | | | +------+ |
| AS 100 | | +------+ | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | +-+-----+-+ | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | +-+-----+-+ | +------+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ | | |
| | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| |PCE | | | |PCE | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
+------------------------+ | |
+---------------------------------+
Both AS are made of Area 0.
Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation
This could be represented as <IRO> as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object As| |Object As|
|Header | |100 | |200 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object As| |Object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 0 | |200 | |Area 0 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Area is optional and it MAY be skipped. PCE should be able to
understand both notations.
3.5.2.2. Example 2
As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas and
multiple domain-sequence exist, PCE MAY include both AS and AREA
subobject to uniquely identify the next domain and PCE.
| |
| +-------------+ +----------------+ | +-------------+ +----------------+
| |Area 2 | |Area 4 | | |Area 2 | |Area 4 |
| | +--+| | +--+ | | | +--+| | +--+ |
| | | || | | | | | | | || | | | |
| | +--+ +--+| | +--+ +--+ | | | +--+ +--+| | +--+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | *--+ | | +--+ | | | *--+ | | +--+ |
| | / +--+ | | +--+ | | | / +--+ | | +--+ |
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
| |\ +--+ | +--+ | | |\ +--+ | +--+ |
| | \ +--+ | | | | | | | \ +--+ | | | | |
| | \| | | | +--+ | | | \| | | | +--+ |
| | *--+ | | | | | *--+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| +------------+ +----------------+ | +------------+ +----------------+
| |
| |
As 100 | AS 200 As 100 | AS 200
| |
Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation
The domain sequence can be carried in IRO as shown below: The domain sequence can be carried in IRO as shown below:
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |As 100 | |Area 1 | |AS 200 | |Area 3 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |As 100 | |Area 1 | |AS 200 | |Area 3 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Combination of both AS and Area uniquely identify a domain in the domain Combination of both AS and Area uniquely identify a domain in the domain
sequence. sequence.
3.3.4. PCE serving multiple domains Note that an Area domain identifier always belongs to the previous AS
that appear before it or, if no AS sub-objects are present, it is
assumed to be the current AS.
A single PCE maybe responsible for multiple domains; for example PCE If the area information cannot be provided, PCE MAY forward the path
computation request to the next PCE based on AS only. If multiple
PCEs of different area domain exist, PCE MAY apply local policy to
select the next PCE. Furthermore the domain sequence (list of areas
within AS) in the next PCE MAYBE pre-administered or MAYBE discovered
via some mechanism (ex. HPCE).
3.5.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link
A PCC or PCE MAY add additional constraints covering which Boundary
Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border links (Inter-AS-link) MUST be traversed
while defining a domain sequence. In which case the Boundary Node or
Link MAY be encoded as a part of the domain-sequence using the
existing sub-objects.
Boundary Node (ABR / ASBR) can be encoded using the IPv4 or IPv6
prefix sub-objects. The Inter-AS link can be encoded using the IPv4
or IPv6 prefix or unnumbered interface sub-objects.
For Figure 1, an ABR to be traversed can be specified as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub ||Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object ||Object | |Object |
|Header | |Area 2 | |IPv4 ||Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | |x.x.x.x || | | |
| | | | | || | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+
For Figure 2, an inter-AS-link to be traversed can be specified as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object | |Object As|
|Header | |100 | |IPv4 | |IPv4 | |200 |
| | | | |x.x.x.x | |x.x.x.x | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
3.5.4. PCE serving multiple domains
A single PCE MAYBE responsible for multiple domains; for example PCE
function deployed on an ABR. Domain sequence should have no impact function deployed on an ABR. Domain sequence should have no impact
on this. PCE which can support 2 adjacent domains can internally on this. PCE which can support 2 adjacent domains can internally
handle this situation without any impact on the neighboring domains. handle this situation without any impact on the neighboring domains.
3.3.5. P2MP 3.5.5. P2MP
In case of P2MP the path domain tree is nothing but a series of In case of P2MP the path domain tree is nothing but a series of
Domain-Seq, as shown in the below figure: Domain Sequences, as shown in the below figure:
D1-D3-D6, D1-D3-D5 and D1-D2-D4. D1-D3-D6, D1-D3-D5 and D1-D2-D4.
D1 D1
/ \ / \
D2 D3 D2 D3
/ / \ / / \
D4 D5 D6 D4 D5 D6
The same domain sequence are carried in IRO as explained above. 3.5.6. HPCE
3.3.6. HPCE
Consider a case as shown below consisting of child and parent PCE. As per [PCE-HIERARCHY-FWK], consider a case as shown in Figure 4
consisting of multiple child PCEs and a parent PCE.
+--------+ +--------+
| Parent | | Parent |
| PCE | | PCE |
+--------+ +--------+
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | |
| | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ |
skipping to change at page 13, line 50 skipping to change at page 17, line 50
| | | + + +--+ | | | | + + +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | | | |
| + + +--+ | | + + +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | +--+ | | |
| | | | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ |
| +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | | | |
| | | +--+ | | | | +--+ |
| Area 1 | | Area 5 | | Area 1 | | Area 5 |
+------------------+ +--------------------+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
In HPCE implementation PCE(1) can request the parent PCE to determine Figure 4: Hierarchical PCE
the domain path and return in the PCRep in form of ERO. The
Subobject would be AS and Area (OSPF/ISIS). So in this case, the In HPCE implementation the initiator PCE - PCE(1) can request the
reply would carry the result as parent PCE to determine the domain sequence and return in the path
computation reply message (PCRep), using the ERO Object. The ERO can
contain an ordered sequence of sub-object such as AS and Area (OSPF/
ISIS). In this case, the PCRep would carry the domain sequence
result as:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|ERO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |ERO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|ERO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |ERO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub |
|Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object As| |Object | |Object | |Object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | |Header | |100 | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
3.3.7. Domain Seq V/s PCE Seq Note that, in the case of ERO objects, no new PCEP object type is
required since the ordering constraint is assumed.
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] introduces the concept of PCE-Sequence, where a 3.5.7. Relationship to PCE Sequence
sequence of PCE based on the domain sequence should be decided and
attached in the PCReq at the very beginning of path computation. It [RFC5886] and [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] along with Domain Sequence
is much simpler and advantageous to carry only domain-sequence rather introduces the concept of PCE-Sequence, where a sequence of PCEs,
than PCE-Sequence. based on the domain sequence, should be decided and attached in the
PCReq at the very beginning of path computation. An alternative
would be to use domain sequences, which simplifies as explained
below:
Advantages Advantages
o All PCE must be aware of all other PCEs in all domain for PCE- o All PCE must be aware of all other PCEs in all domain for PCE-
Sequence. There is no clear method for this. In domain-sequence Sequence. There is no clear method for this. In domain-sequence
PCE should be aware of the domains and not all the PCEs serving PCE should be aware of the domains and not all the PCEs serving
the domain. PCE needs to be aware of the neighboring PCEs as done the domain. PCE needs to be aware of the neighboring PCEs as done
by discovery protocols. by discovery protocols.
o There maybe multiple PCE in a domain, the selection of PCE o There maybe multiple PCE in a domain, the selection of PCE should
shouldn't be made at the PCC/PCE(1). This decision is made only not be made at the PCC/PCE(1). This decision is made only at the
at the neighboring PCE which is completely aware of states of PCE neighboring PCE which is aware of state of PCEs via notification
via notification messages. messages.
o Domain sequence would be compatible to P2P inter-domain BRPC o Domain sequence would be compatible to P2P inter-domain BRPC
method as described in RFC 5441. method as described in [RFC5441].
There is no need for PCE-Sequence and it doesn't give any benefits
over Domain Seq.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA has defined a registry for OSPF and ISIS Area sub-object. 4.1. New IRO Object Type
IANA has defined a registry for Domain-Sequence.
IRO Object-Class 10
IRO Object-Type 2
4.2. Sub-Objects
IANA has defined a registry for following sub-objects.
Type Sub-object Type Sub-object
TBD AS Number (4 Byte) TBD AS Number (4 Byte)
TBD OSPF Area id TBD OSPF Area id
TBD ISIS Area id TBD ISIS Area id
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document specifies a standard representation of domain sequence, This document specifies a standard representation of domain sequence,
which is used in all inter-domain PCE scenarios as explained in other which is used in all inter-domain PCE scenarios as explained in other
RFC and drafts. It does not introduce any new security RFC and drafts. It does not introduce any new security
considerations. considerations.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
TBD TBD
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh babu, Quintin Zhao and We would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh babu, Quintin Zhao,
Chen Huaimo for their useful comments and suggestions. Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez and Chen Huaimo for their
useful comments and suggestions.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[ISO] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System
Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for
use in Conjunction with the Protocol for
Providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service" ISO/IEC 10589:2002 Second Edition
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[PCE-HIERARCHY-FWK] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of [ISO 10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate
the Path Computation Element Architecture to system routeing information exchange protocol
the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in for use in conjunction with the Protocol for
MPLS and GMPLS", September 2010. providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] Zhao, Q., Ali, Z., Saad,, T., and D. King, 8.2. Informative References
"PCE-based Computation Procedure To Compute
Shortest Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths",
January 2011.
[RFC 3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE:
Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209,
December 2001. December 2001.
[RFC 4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four- [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
octet AS Number Space", May 2007. Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5440] Ayyangar, A ., Farrel, A ., Oki, E., Atlas, [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling
A., Dolganow, A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation
Vasseur, J., and J. Roux, "Path Computation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)",
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
March 2009.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A
Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726,
November 2006.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-
octet AS Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for
Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering
(TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152,
February 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le
Roux, "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Roux, "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based
Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute
Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", April 2009. Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
April 2009.
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A
Set of Monitoring Tools for Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 5886,
June 2010.
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ali, Z., Saad,, T.,
Sivabalan,, S., and R. Casellas, "PCE-based
Computation Procedure To Compute Shortest
Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-02)",
February 2012.
[PCE-HIERARCHY-FWK] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of
the Path Computation Element Architecture to
the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in
MPLS and GMPLS.
(draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-00)",
October 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA INDIA
EMail: dhruvd@huawei.com EMail: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA INDIA
EMail: udayasreepalle@huawei.com EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas Ramon Casellas
CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
SPAIN SPAIN
EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
194 lines changed or deleted 440 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://www.tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/
--Boundary_(ID_7ddiIG/mcW5OwxOCsXFRIw)-- From helia.pouyllau@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Feb 10 00:39:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1401821F8782 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:39:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZB5cHkonY9QZ for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F03021F8780 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q1A8ZsHI002877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:39:13 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.36]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:38:40 +0100 From: "POUYLLAU, HELIA (HELIA)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:38:40 +0100 Thread-Topic: draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-errors-03 Thread-Index: AcznrasTMQoinMD8T3mpNAwSFB6yzAAIK6kg Message-ID: <2D26984ED849C94A8C7D6276DA008FF212AAC0D829@FRMRSSXCHMBSA1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <004f01cce7ad$abd456c0$037d0440$%dhody@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <004f01cce7ad$abd456c0$037d0440$%dhody@huawei.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D26984ED849C94A8C7D6276DA008FF212AAC0D829FRMRSSXCHMBSA_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Subject: [Pce] draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-errors-03 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:39:17 -0000 --_000_2D26984ED849C94A8C7D6276DA008FF212AAC0D829FRMRSSXCHMBSA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, We submitted a new version of the draft some months ago and received no fee= dback by now althought we integrated most of the comments received previous= ly. We would like also the draft ot be considered for WG adoption so please= give a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-erro= rs-03 and provide us feedback on the specific concerns that was addressed = by: - section 4: Error-type and Notification-type are replaced by TLVs : a TLV= to indicate the criticity level of errors, a TLV to indicate the type of n= otification (request-specific or not), a TLV to specify if the message must= be propagate or not. The propagation of critical errors that consequently = close the PCEP session is still feasible (we aim to cover all the behaviors= ) but optional by the introduction of a medium level of criticity. - section 5.3: specify the rules of TLV usages with the error and notificat= ion types defined in RFC 5440, 5441, 5455, 5521, 5557, 5886 and 6006. - section 6: Error and notification scenarios have been reformulated and fo= cus on a sub-set of behaviors. BR Helia Pouyllau --_000_2D26984ED849C94A8C7D6276DA008FF212AAC0D829FRMRSSXCHMBSA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

 <= /span>

We submitted a new version of the draft some months ago and received no feedback by now althou= ght we integrated most of the comments received previously. We would like also = the draft ot be considered for WG adoption so please give a look at h= ttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-errors-03 and  provide us feedback on the specific concerns that was addressed b= y:

- section 4: Error= -type and Notification-type are replaced by TLVs : a  TLV to indicate the criticity level of errors, a TLV to indicate the type of notification (request-specific or not), a TLV to specify if the message must be propagat= e or not. The propagation of critical errors that consequently close the PCEP session is still feasible (we aim to cover all the behaviors) but optional = by the introduction of a medium level of criticity.

- section 5.3: spe= cify the rules of TLV usages with the error and notification types defined in RF= C 5440, 5441, 5455, 5521, 5557, 5886 and 6006.

- section 6: Error= and notification scenarios have been reformulated and focus on a sub-set of behaviors.

 <= /span>

BR

Helia Pouyllau

--_000_2D26984ED849C94A8C7D6276DA008FF212AAC0D829FRMRSSXCHMBSA_-- From jpv@cisco.com Mon Feb 20 01:46:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC2E21F8715 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:46:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bFVPwHQesx7W for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4344621F86FA for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:46:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=842; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329731173; x=1330940773; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=j/N6TUdQWJIkqfx4bnT9ktx6wJI48oYaFwMNGtIuxHc=; b=GPx+WOZ0XIn5sR4ulGS04f/NH4KNQ8PS65PnsAjq9tzdBpUDDACPuRz8 z2tULoRCOekQ8MdwjbQxDTZgI9djCBotus9HZAtPLLrVcqzk9yoV0gi+Y sYWGykIVqFaWNolVT3NQibCYVLYsYi7HK0vCA2m6YViorQpaENAAaOgIL k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar8GAK4VQk+Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABEgw6vMIEHggwBWwuBc6MHAZ4li38IAQQNFQUWAQkCBgMBBgMDAwKDXgZWgjtjBJU3hV2NEQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,450,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="66517789" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2012 09:46:12 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1K9kCfM012000; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:46:12 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-202.cisco.com ([144.254.231.96]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:46:12 +0100 Received: from [10.60.114.232] ([10.60.114.232]) by xfe-ams-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:46:12 +0100 From: JP Vasseur Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:46:11 +0100 Message-Id: To: pce@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 09:46:12.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B0D4240:01CCEFB4] Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as PCE WOrking Group Document X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:46:18 -0000 Dear all, Thanks for your feed-back on the mailing list, there is a good consensus = supporting the adoption of draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-02 as a PCE WG document. Authors please submit the new ID with no change other than the = title, date, =85 as draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00 Several of you mentioned that they have comments and would like to = contribute; adopting a document as a WG document is by no mean the end of the process, so please send your comments and contribute to the = document, there is certainly still significant additional work on this = document. As already pointed out on the mailing list, this document does not = require any PCE rechartering, it fits in the PCE WG charter and was = explicitly documented in Section 6.8 of RFC4655. See you all at the IETF-83 in Paris. JP and Julien.= From ramon.casellas@cttc.es Fri Feb 24 10:09:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E27321F84CE for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:09:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDZY0dvNeQCU for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:09:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from aquila.cttc.es (aquila.cttc.es [84.88.62.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDD021F84D5 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:09:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from leo (leo.cttc.es [84.88.62.208]) by aquila.cttc.es (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1OI6i4o024304 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:06:44 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (62.57.44.55.dyn.user.ono.com [62.57.44.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A1B5200D0 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:08:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F47D23B.7060006@cttc.es> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:08:59 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120217 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <20120224173010.27810.25116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120224173010.27810.25116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120224173010.27810.25116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000103000504010402040307" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.4 (leo [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:08:56 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 84.88.62.230 Subject: [Pce] IETF PCE WG and IPR -- Was: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:09:29 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000103000504010402040307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear PCErs, I was quite reluctant to post, but I would like to raise the issue of IPRs covering Internet Drafts, and more specifically, those under the umbrella of the PCE wg First, I am aware of RFC3979 "IP in IETF technology", which somehow calls for a "timely disclosure". However, personally, I find it a bit *surprising* to discover, after contributing to some drafts and after several iterations/versions, that such drafts are covered by IPR. As a co-author, I would appreciate such a warning -- event if the IPR is "defensive" -- before I invest time on it, allowing, at least, an informed decision. Would it be possible to enforce a more satisfying (at least for yours truly) policy regarding prompt / timely disclosure, even a preliminary one? -- (if you ask me, I would like disclosures upon initial/individual draft post) Otherwise I feel somehow forced to ask directly whether a draft is covered by (pending) IPR before reading/commenting/contributing Thanks R. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:30:10 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com, udayasree.palle@huawei.com, ramon.casellas@cttc.es, CC: housley@vigilsec.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Dear Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Ramon Casellas: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Standard Representation Of Domain Sequence" (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-02-24 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1690/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dhody-pce- pcep-domain-sequence-02.""); The IETF Secretariat --------------000103000504010402040307 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear PCErs,


I was quite reluctant to post, but I would like to raise the issue of IPRs covering Internet Drafts, and more specifically, those under the umbrella of the PCE wg

First, I am aware of RFC3979 "IP in IETF technology", which  somehow calls for a "timely disclosure". However, personally, I find it a bit *surprising* to discover, after contributing to some drafts and after several iterations/versions, that such drafts are covered by IPR.

As a co-author, I would appreciate such a warning -- event if the IPR is "defensive" -- before I invest time on it, allowing, at least, an informed decision.

Would it be possible to enforce a more satisfying (at least for yours truly) policy regarding prompt / timely disclosure, even a preliminary one? -- (if you ask me, I would like disclosures upon initial/individual draft post)

Otherwise I feel somehow forced to ask directly whether a draft is covered by (pending) IPR before reading/commenting/contributing


Thanks

R.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:30:10 -0800
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-ipr@ietf.org>
To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com, udayasree.palle@huawei.com, ramon.casellas@cttc.es,
CC: housley@vigilsec.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org 


Dear Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Ramon Casellas:

 An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Standard
Representation Of Domain Sequence" (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-02-24 and has been posted on the "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1690/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-dhody-pce-
pcep-domain-sequence-02."");

The IETF Secretariat
--------------000103000504010402040307-- From jpv@cisco.com Fri Feb 24 18:31:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3EB21E8029 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.943 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42, SARE_SPEC_LEO_LINE03e=0.635, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nF3ibUnhSvJN for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFB821E8021 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=19625; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330137072; x=1331346672; h=from:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=4AmPUfEzEGqAIDd8Nx6tPJVTt1G/IemvHPpgCWt9iyI=; b=g4B2z/7DFQTu4Gpi0a/f/7oB/ljRuCzEPiOYE69zz/i90z+dz/YMvvov GQd05ehL2a+Wuur8eIrhBsk/NiTg0jQoZPtWhMwZSzkgZBUfELp0v5atr Xc1mtzesv/V8tctfaN7FmZaku3QPJXBpKu6+7LkXSI0RgiaYqDGe9kHqE k=; X-Files: color-palette-4x4.gif : 102 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8HAMlGSE+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEglFCnl2IJgGJC4EHgXgHDQFRFTgBAgQkFQEFCUkBBgMZh2MMoEABjSyJRIx6HCojAhkEAQoChFsICQUDAwMDDwYUOAwGCIJrYwSIT4QJgxSFT4VdjTOBMgQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,479,1325462400"; d="gif'147?scan'147,208,217,147";a="32424852" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2012 02:31:11 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1P2VB4S021113; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:31:11 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:11 -0800 Received: from [10.154.200.227] ([10.154.200.227]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:11 -0800 From: JP Vasseur Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7742C0A-02C6-42D6-A5E6-87775DD23E86" Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:31:10 -0800 Message-Id: <1A789C16-5CAB-4C67-9983-B2EE02B8D772@cisco.com> To: pce@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2012 02:31:11.0357 (UTC) FILETIME=[89A6FAD0:01CCF365] Subject: [Pce] Reminder: important dates, slots request for Paris' meeting, draft agenda, ... X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:31:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E7742C0A-02C6-42D6-A5E6-87775DD23E86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear all, As a reminder, here are the important dates: IETF 83: March 25-30, 2012, Paris, France Download .ICS file of important dates for IETF 83 Subscribe to important dates calendar for IETF 83: = http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/IETF-83-important-dates.ics 2011-12-19 (Week of): IETF Online Registration opens. 2011-12-19 (Monday): Working Group and BOF scheduling begins. To request = a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. 2012-01-30 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group = meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, use = the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. 2012-02-13 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area = Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see = instructions on Requesting a BOF. 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at = 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary agenda published for comment. 2012-02-27 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working = Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-02-27 (Monday): Working Group Chair approval for initial document = (Version -00) submissions appreciated by 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to be published. 2012-03-05 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) = submission by 17:00 PT (UTC -8), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. 2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. 2012-03-14 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-03-16 (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment cut-off at = 17:00 PT (UTC -7). 2012-03-19 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-03-19 (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at 17:00 PT (UTC = -7). 2012-03-23 (Friday): Final Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at = 17:00 local meeting time. 2012-03-25 - 2012-03-30: 83rd IETF Meeting in Paris, France. 2012-04-27 (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-05-16 (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff date = by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload usingIETF Meeting Materials Management = Tool. Draft agenda THURSDAY, March 29, 2012 1720-1740 Beverage and Snack Break II - Hall Maillot A 1740-1940 Afternoon Session III 252A INT mif=09 Multiple Interfaces WG drafts: tar|pdf 212/213 OPS ipfix=09 IP Flow Information Export WG drafts: tar|pdf Maillot RAI clue=09 ControLling mUltiple streams for tElepresence WG drafts: tar|pdf 243 RAI geopriv=09 Geographic Location/Privacy WG drafts: tar|pdf 241 RTG pce=09 Path Computation Element WG drafts: tar|pdf 252B RTG rtgwg=09 Routing Area Working Group WG drafts: tar|pdf 242AB SEC saag=09 Security Area Open Meeting drafts: tar|pdf 253 TSV conex=09 Congestion Exposure WG drafts: tar|pdf Please let us know no later than March 3 if you would like to request a = slot for the PCE Working Group meeting. Thanks. JP and Michael.= --Apple-Mail=_E7742C0A-02C6-42D6-A5E6-87775DD23E86 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0AFB00E6-769B-4EDC-B9E6-BFEE9DD4B85B" --Apple-Mail=_0AFB00E6-769B-4EDC-B9E6-BFEE9DD4B85B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear = all,

As a reminder, here are the important = dates:

IETF = 83: March 25-30, 2012, Paris, = France

Download .ICS file of important dates for IETF 83
Subscribe to = important dates calendar for IETF 83: http:/= /www.ietf.org/meeting/83/IETF-83-important-dates.ics

    = IETF Meeting Session Request Tool.
  • 2012-01-30 = (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working = Group meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, = use the = IETF Meeting Session Request Tool.
  • 2012-02-13 = (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area = Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see = instructions on Requesting a = BOF.
  • 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff = date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at 17:00 PT (UTC = -8).
  • 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary = agenda published for comment.
  • 2012-02-27 = (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working = Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8).
  • 2012-02-27 = (Monday): Working Group Chair approval for initial = document (Version -00) submissions appreciated by 17:00 PT (UTC = -8).
  • 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to = be published.
  • 2012-03-05 = (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document = (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (UTC -8), upload using IETF ID Submission = Tool.
  • 2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet = Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload = using IETF ID = Submission Tool.
  • 2012-03-14 = (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-03-16 = (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment cut-off at = 17:00 PT (UTC -7).
  • 2012-03-19 = (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-03-19 = (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at 17:00 PT = (UTC -7).
  • 2012-03-23 (Friday): Final = Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at 17:00 local meeting = time.
  • 2012-03-25 - 2012-03-30: 83rd IETF Meeting in = Paris, France.
  • 2012-04-27 = (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-05-16 = (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff = date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload usingIETF = Meeting Materials Management = Tool.

Draft = agenda

THURSDAY, March 29, 2012

1720-1740 Beverage and Snack Break II = - Hall= Maillot A
1740-1940 Afternoon Session III
252AINTmif
3D"" Multiple = Interfaces WGtar= |pdf=
212/213ipfix
3D"" IP Flow = Information Export WGdrafts: t= ar|p= df
Maillotclue
3D"" ControLli= ng mUltiple streams for tElepresence WGdrafts: ta= r|pd= f
243RAIgeopriv
3D"" Geographi= c Location/Privacy WGdrafts: tar|pdf
241RTGpce
3D"" Path = Computation Element WGdrafts: tar= |pdf=
252BRTGrtgwg
3D"" Routing = Area Working Group WGdrafts: t= ar|p= df
242ABSECsaag
3D"" Security = Area Open Meetingta= r|pd= f
253TSVconex
3D"" Congestio= n Exposure WGt= ar|p= df
Please let us know no later than March 3 if you would = like to request a slot for the PCE Working Group = meeting.

Thanks.

JP and = Michael.
= --Apple-Mail=_0AFB00E6-769B-4EDC-B9E6-BFEE9DD4B85B Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=color-palette-4x4.gif Content-Type: image/gif; name="color-palette-4x4.gif" Content-Id: R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAAAAMr eLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --Apple-Mail=_0AFB00E6-769B-4EDC-B9E6-BFEE9DD4B85B-- --Apple-Mail=_E7742C0A-02C6-42D6-A5E6-87775DD23E86-- From jpv@cisco.com Fri Feb 24 18:32:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8094B21E8029 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.943 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42, SARE_SPEC_LEO_LINE03e=0.635, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKgrjf1SJw9O for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7F121E8021 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=19612; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330137168; x=1331346768; h=from:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=5veYNljQ+7Rgc87eVBYOZy9oeNgNjNcHFdSMsKqzsNo=; b=P+eyKPt/2bbeNZbjn3sWRD+qgrdLaMdkTpryBkKE/FV/DcuJU1J1Yd4d RTLbeYU9wjX/8PzQQipBgt++2/+ca8Lj/96MwQ7T3mpI+XBn+TyFylqT/ Ur0Rfh0fPNK/BhxFt0fT72JnA5QZaMUm+encq4voqcMHrt793Yuk8R8px o=; X-Files: color-palette-4x4.gif : 102 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8HANFHSE+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDgj9Cnl2IJgGJDIEHgXgHDQFRFTgBAgQkFQEFCUkBBgMZh2MBC5kjAY0skSmMehwqIwIZBAEKAoRbCAkFAwMDAw8GFDgMBgiCa2MEiE+ECYMUhU+FXY0zgTIE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,479,1325462400"; d="gif'147?scan'147,208,217,147";a="30409677" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2012 02:32:47 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1P2Wmp1021854; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:32:48 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:48 -0800 Received: from [10.154.200.227] ([10.154.200.227]) by xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:47 -0800 From: JP Vasseur Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_874230A9-D946-432C-B122-53D85F92E55F" Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:32:47 -0800 Message-Id: <63FAA125-1E25-451B-B51C-8E62D1026247@cisco.com> To: pce@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2012 02:32:47.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2F25690:01CCF365] Subject: [Pce] Reminder: important dates, slots request for Paris' meeting, draft agenda, ... X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:32:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_874230A9-D946-432C-B122-53D85F92E55F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear all, As a reminder, here are the important dates: IETF 83: March 25-30, 2012, Paris, France Download .ICS file of important dates for IETF 83 Subscribe to important dates calendar for IETF 83: = http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/IETF-83-important-dates.ics 2011-12-19 (Week of): IETF Online Registration opens. 2011-12-19 (Monday): Working Group and BOF scheduling begins. To request = a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. 2012-01-30 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group = meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, use = the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool. 2012-02-13 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area = Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see = instructions on Requesting a BOF. 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at = 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary agenda published for comment. 2012-02-27 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working = Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-02-27 (Monday): Working Group Chair approval for initial document = (Version -00) submissions appreciated by 17:00 PT (UTC -8). 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to be published. 2012-03-05 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) = submission by 17:00 PT (UTC -8), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. 2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. 2012-03-14 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-03-16 (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment cut-off at = 17:00 PT (UTC -7). 2012-03-19 (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-03-19 (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at 17:00 PT (UTC = -7). 2012-03-23 (Friday): Final Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at = 17:00 local meeting time. 2012-03-25 - 2012-03-30: 83rd IETF Meeting in Paris, France. 2012-04-27 (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7), upload using IETF Meeting Materials Management Tool. 2012-05-16 (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff date = by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload usingIETF Meeting Materials Management = Tool. Draft agenda THURSDAY, March 29, 2012 1720-1740 Beverage and Snack Break II - Hall Maillot A 1740-1940 Afternoon Session III 252A INT mif=09 Multiple Interfaces WG drafts: tar|pdf 212/213 OPS ipfix=09 IP Flow Information Export WG drafts: tar|pdf Maillot RAI clue=09 ControLling mUltiple streams for tElepresence WG drafts: tar|pdf 243 RAI geopriv=09 Geographic Location/Privacy WG drafts: tar|pdf 241 RTG pce=09 Path Computation Element WG drafts: tar|pdf 252B RTG rtgwg=09 Routing Area Working Group WG drafts: tar|pdf 242AB SEC saag=09 Security Area Open Meeting drafts: tar|pdf 253 TSV conex=09 Congestion Exposure WG drafts: tar|pdf Please let us know no later than March 3 if you would like to request a = slot for the PCE Working Group meeting. Thanks. JP and Julien.= --Apple-Mail=_874230A9-D946-432C-B122-53D85F92E55F Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="Apple-Mail=_203C0410-147E-4BE2-9971-525ED5C25596" --Apple-Mail=_203C0410-147E-4BE2-9971-525ED5C25596 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear all,

As = a reminder, here are the important dates:

IETF 83: March 25-30, 2012, = Paris, France

Download .ICS file of important dates for IETF 83
Subscribe to = important dates calendar for IETF 83: http:/= /www.ietf.org/meeting/83/IETF-83-important-dates.ics

    = IETF Meeting Session Request Tool.
  • 2012-01-30 = (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working = Group meetings at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a Working Group session, = use the = IETF Meeting Session Request Tool.
  • 2012-02-13 = (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area = Directors at 17:00 PT (UTC -8). To request a BOF, please see = instructions on Requesting a = BOF.
  • 2012-02-16 (Thursday): Cutoff = date for Area Directors to approve BOFs at 17:00 PT (UTC = -8).
  • 2012-02-23 (Thursday): Preliminary = agenda published for comment.
  • 2012-02-27 = (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to reschedule Working = Group and BOF meetings 17:00 PT (UTC -8).
  • 2012-02-27 = (Monday): Working Group Chair approval for initial = document (Version -00) submissions appreciated by 17:00 PT (UTC = -8).
  • 2012-03-02 (Friday): Final agenda to = be published.
  • 2012-03-05 = (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document = (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (UTC -8), upload using IETF ID Submission = Tool.
  • 2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet = Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload = using IETF ID = Submission Tool.
  • 2012-03-14 = (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-03-16 = (Friday): Early Bird registration and payment cut-off at = 17:00 PT (UTC -7).
  • 2012-03-19 = (Monday): Revised Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-03-19 = (Monday): Registration cancellation cut-off at 17:00 PT = (UTC -7).
  • 2012-03-23 (Friday): Final = Pre-Registration and Pre-Payment cut-off at 17:00 local meeting = time.
  • 2012-03-25 - 2012-03-30: 83rd IETF Meeting in = Paris, France.
  • 2012-04-27 = (Friday): Proceedings submission cutoff date by 17:00 PT = (UTC -7), upload using IETF = Meeting Materials Management Tool.
  • 2012-05-16 = (Wednesday): Proceedings submission corrections cutoff = date by 17:00 PT (UTC -7), upload usingIETF = Meeting Materials Management = Tool.

Draft = agenda

THURSDAY, March 29, 2012

1720-1740 Beverage and Snack Break II = - Hall= Maillot A
1740-1940 Afternoon Session III
252AINTmif
3D"" Multiple = Interfaces WGtar= |pdf=
212/213ipfix
3D"" IP Flow = Information Export WGdrafts: t= ar|p= df
Maillotclue
3D"" ControLli= ng mUltiple streams for tElepresence WGdrafts: ta= r|pd= f
243RAIgeopriv
3D"" Geographi= c Location/Privacy WGdrafts: tar|pdf
241RTGpce
3D"" Path = Computation Element WGdrafts: tar= |pdf=
252BRTGrtgwg
3D"" Routing = Area Working Group WGdrafts: t= ar|p= df
242ABSECsaag
3D"" Security = Area Open Meetingta= r|pd= f
253TSVconex
3D"" Congestio= n Exposure WGt= ar|p= df
Please let us know no later than March 3 if you would = like to request a slot for the PCE Working Group = meeting.

Thanks.

JP and = Julien.
= --Apple-Mail=_203C0410-147E-4BE2-9971-525ED5C25596 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=color-palette-4x4.gif Content-Type: image/gif; name="color-palette-4x4.gif" Content-Id: R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAAAAMr eLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --Apple-Mail=_203C0410-147E-4BE2-9971-525ED5C25596-- --Apple-Mail=_874230A9-D946-432C-B122-53D85F92E55F-- From julien.meuric@orange.com Tue Feb 28 06:26:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2761B21F8624 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:26:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.636 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.613, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uCez5xTAlMSb for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D52521F8629 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C9255D8996 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:26:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C1A5D8995 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:26:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:26:06 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.161] ([10.193.71.161]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:26:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4CE3FD.9070409@orange.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:26:05 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2012 14:26:06.0244 (UTC) FILETIME=[E83C8E40:01CCF624] Subject: [Pce] The MPLS 2012 International Conference Call For Papers X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:26:08 -0000 The MPLS 2012 International Conference, the 15th Annual International Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 28 - 31, 2012, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics. Presentations covering new technologies and operational experience are solicited from network equipment vendors, service/transport providers, government agencies, the research community, and enterprise users. The deadline for submission of presentation proposals is April 30, 2012. If you want further information on MPLS 2012 or want to submit a presentation abstract, please see the following URL: http://www.isocore.com/mpls2012/call_for_papers/cfp.htm Many of these topics have been of interest to members of the PCE WG in the past, and many people active on this list have been presenters at past events. On behalf of the Technical Planning Committee Julien From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 28 15:31:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93A221E8045; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:31:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ay+jjelkYnf; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:31:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A2421E802A; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:31:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120228233119.14716.6339.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:31:19 -0800 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:31:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Grou= p of the IETF. Title : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Author(s) : Edward Crabbe Jan Medved Robert Varga Ina Minei Filename : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00.txt Pages : 51 Date : 2012-02-28 The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable this functionality, providing stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00.txt From julien.meuric@orange.com Wed Feb 29 02:04:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C9921F8803; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:04:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.345, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I0T0ewi309-L; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:04:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5A621F87FF; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D9E31E307A7; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:05:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04D3E302B6; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:05:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:04:11 +0100 Received: from [10.193.71.161] ([10.193.71.161]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:04:11 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4DF81A.3010801@orange.com> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:04:10 +0100 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org References: <20120206.202719.2135711079242187783.harai@nict.go.jp> In-Reply-To: <20120206.202719.2135711079242187783.harai@nict.go.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Feb 2012 10:04:11.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BF3B3D0:01CCF6C9] Cc: iPOP2012-tpc-sec@pilab.jp Subject: Re: [Pce] iPOP2012 Call for Presentation (extended deadline: Feb 29) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:04:14 -0000 Hi IETF-ers. The extended deadline of iPOP CfP is today: this is your very last chance to submit a proposal to the 2012 edition of iPOP. Best regards, Julien Le 06/02/2012 12:27, Hiroaki Harai a écrit : > (Apologies if you received multiple copies of this message.) > > Dear CCAMP, PCE and MPLS subscribers, > > Please find iPOP2012 Call for Presentation. The deadline for > submitting presentation proposal (1-page abstract) is February 15th, > 2012. > > Best regards, > Hiroaki Harai > TPC Co-Chair for iPOP 2012 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Call for Presentation > > 8th International Conference on IP + Optical Network (iPOP 2012) > May 31 - June 1, 2012 > Hiyoshi Campus, Keio University, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa, Japan > http://www.pilab.jp/ipop2012/ > > The conference is intended to share among the industry and the academia, > the knowledge, new findings, and experience on the state-of-the art of > IP and optical networking technologies. It features technical sessions > and planned exhibitions. The opportunity to participate is open to all. > > Important Dates: > Submission deadline of one-page abstract: February 15, 2012 > Notification of acceptance: March 30, 2012 > Submission deadline of final presentation slides: April 20, 2012 > > The Technical Program Committee for iPOP 2012 is soliciting presentation > proposals for this conference. Protocol design, experiment, theory, > implementation, and operational experiences are solicited. > The topics of the conference will include but not be limited to the following: > > * Photonic Network for NxGN and NwGN > * Multi-layer network (MLN) / Multi-region network (MRN) > * Inter-area/Inter-AS network > * Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON), Routing wavelength assignment, > Impairment management > * GMPLS/ASON technologies > * GMPLS Network management, OA&M > * GMPLS-controlled Ethernet Label Switching (GELS) and related Ethernet > transport technologies > * Path Computation Element (PCE), Traffic engineering > * Application with high-bandwidth demand > * L1VPN, Bandwidth on Demand, and Photonic Grid > * MPLS and Ethernet networking for Inter-data center connectivity for cloud > computing > * Carrier Ethernet and MPLS-TP for backhauling > * Testbed, field trial > > > If you wish to submit a topic for consideration, please send an Extended > Abstracts of 400 words and a maximum of 1 page, including figures and > diagrams, speaker’s name, affiliation, and contact information > to the Technical Program Committee at ipop2012-CFP@pilab.jp. > Please see http://www.pilab.jp/ipop2012/ for more details. > > Kind regards, > Hiroaki Harai, Julien Meuric, Eiji Oki > iPOP 2012 TPC Co-Chairs > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >