Subject: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability)

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:57:20 -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? 

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ramon
Casellas
Sent: 01 February 2012 15:53
To: [email-masked]
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 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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: Oscar González de Dios <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:04 +0100

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).  Questions 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.

        Óscar

>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
>Daniel King
>Enviado el: jueves, 02 de febrero de 2012 11:57
>Para: 'Ramon Casellas'; [email-masked]
>Asunto: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to
>draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability)
>
>Hi Ramon, All,
>
>though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments
>are clearly required. The work (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) is
>representation? If so, then I agree draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability is
>a viable candidate to document the requirements.
>
>Ramon Casellas

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

---

From: Ramon Casellas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:32:03 +0100

On 02/02/2012 11:57 AM, Daniel King wrote:
> 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
I am afraid I don't have a clear list of them. Dhruv?

> 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 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:27:07 +0530

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ramon
Casellas
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:02 PM
To: Daniel King
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01 (applicability to
draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability)

> though, we need to be able to demonstrate that new protocol developments
are

Dear Dan, all

Thanks for your comments
R