From dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Fri Jun 8 01:51:01 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 01D0721F885A for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:51:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, 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 nMQcgmo-YUzb for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEB521F885D for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:50:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 AGR95877; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:48:46 -0700 Received: from SZXEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.152) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:48:44 -0700 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; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:48:24 +0800 From: Dhruv Dhody To: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:18:23 +0530 Organization: HTIPL Message-ID: <000301cd4553$77283be0$6578b3a0$@dhody@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01CD4581.90E077E0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1E0LtOQmvbPnnLRwyS8s7ZjILCYwAgPfiA Content-Language: en-us X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: vishwas.manral@hp.com Subject: [Pce] New Version Notification for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-03.txt 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, 08 Jun 2012 08:51:01 -0000 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CD4581.90E077E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WG,=20 =20 We have an updated version of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware. =20 =20 = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-03 =20 The Main changes are -=20 1) A separate section for the new metric value representations (Latency, = Latency-Variation, Packet Loss) =20 2) Maintaining same format as the OSPF and ISIS = drafts[draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions / = draft-previdi-isis-te-metric-extensions] 3) Editorial Changes and Updates in Reference and IANA.=20 =20 Comments and Suggestions are always welcome!=20 =20 Regards, Dhruv=20 =20 *************************************************************************= ****** Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, = Ph. +91-9845062422 =20 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! =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:43 PM > To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com > Cc: vishwas.manral@hp.com > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware- > 03.txt >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-03.txt has = been > successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF = repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware > Revision: 03 > Title: Extensions to the Path Computation Element = Communication > Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP). > Creation date: 2012-06-07 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 13 >=20 > Abstract: > In certain networks like financial information network (stock/ > commodity trading) and enterprises using cloud based applications, > Latency (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet loss is > becoming a key requirement for path computation along with other > constraints and metrics. Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet = Loss > is associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between > customers and service providers. >=20 > [MPLS-DELAY-FWK] describes MPLS architecture to allow Latency > (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet loss as properties. > [OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes mechanisms with > which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and > ISIS respectively. This document describes the extension to PCEP = to > carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Loss as constraints for end to > end path computation. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CD4581.90E077E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

WG,

 

We have an updated version of = draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware. = =C2=A0

 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-s= ervice-aware-03

 

The Main changes are -

1) A separate section for the new metric value representations = (Latency, Latency-Variation, Packet Loss) =C2=A0

2) Maintaining same format as the OSPF and ISIS = drafts[draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions / = draft-previdi-isis-te-metric-extensions]

3) Editorial Changes and Updates in Reference and IANA. =

 

Comments and Suggestions are always welcome!

 

Regards,

Dhruv

 

****************************************************= ***************************

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!

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org = [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]

> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:43 = PM

> To: = dhruv.dhody@huawei.com

> Cc: = vishwas.manral@hp.com

> = Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-

> 03.txt

>

> A = new version of I-D, draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware-03.txt has = been

> successfully submitted = by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF repository.

>

> = Filename: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware

> Revision: 03

> = Title:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Extensions = to the Path Computation Element Communication

> Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label = Switched Path (LSP).

> Creation = date:=C2=A0 2012-06-07

> WG = ID:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Individual = Submission

> Number of pages: = 13

>

> Abstract:

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0In certain networks like = financial information network (stock/

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0commodity trading) and = enterprises using cloud based applications,

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Latency (delay), = Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet loss is

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0becoming a key requirement = for path computation along with other

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0constraints and = metrics.=C2=A0 Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet = Loss

> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0is = associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) = between

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0customers and service providers.

>

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[MPLS-DELAY-FWK] describes MPLS architecture to allow = Latency

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0(delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet loss as = properties.

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes = mechanisms with

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0which network performance information is distributed = via OSPF and

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0ISIS respectively.=C2=A0 This document describes the = extension to PCEP to

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Loss as = constraints for end to

> = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0end path computation.

>

> =

>

>

> = The IETF Secretariat

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CD4581.90E077E0-- From julien.meuric@orange.com Fri Jun 8 07:37:42 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 5919C21F8901 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 0hpZtwOpla0F for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB9321F88CF for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1332A18C452 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.51]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EB2CD238048 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DC0CCCF43D5 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp4.rd.francetelecom.fr (ftrdsmtp4.rd.francetelecom.fr [10.192.128.49]) by p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D15CF43D4 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp4.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:40 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.71] ([10.193.71.71]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:37:35 +0200 Message-ID: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:37:34 +0200 From: Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2012 14:37:35.0534 (UTC) FILETIME=[3ECE9CE0:01CD4584] X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.6.8.110323 Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 08 Jun 2012 14:37:42 -0000 Hi all. The document has been stable for a while and the traffic on the list is low: the time seems appropriate to get many reviews. This message starts a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02; this LC will end on Friday June 22, noon UTC. Please sent your comments to the PCE mailing list. JP & Julien _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From julien.meuric@orange.com Fri Jun 8 07:49:48 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 0B80F21F843C for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 DbD4plOl2DsV for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F90B21F8700 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 56DC52DC48F; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.51]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 32B4D238059; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0119BCF4414; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp3.rd.francetelecom.fr (ftrdsmtp3.rd.francetelecom.fr [10.192.128.48]) by p-mail4.rd.francetelecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF80ECF4412; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp3.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:49:43 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.71] ([10.193.71.71]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:42:22 +0200 Message-ID: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:42:21 +0200 From: Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel King , Adrian Farrel , Quintin Zhao , Fatai Zhang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2012 14:42:22.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9D914D0:01CD4584] X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.6.8.143342 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 08 Jun 2012 14:49:48 -0000 Dear co-authors of the aforementioned I-D, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) A response from each of you is expected. Regards, JP & Julien _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Jun 8 08:51:04 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 2ADFF21F853E for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 5eo99X1hC2MM for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CB021F8539 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58FoVXQ031606; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:50:31 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (ns-visitor-nsrp.juniper.net [208.223.208.242]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58FoRiA031559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:50:29 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , "'Daniel King'" , "'Quintin Zhao'" , "'Fatai Zhang'" References: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:50:26 +0100 Message-ID: <00c901cd458e$6e37b6b0$4aa72410$@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: AQEqAI4cSW9jJ0GIg2pVhIk9GGWdH5g3Fuuw Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:51:04 -0000 I am unaware of any IPR specific to this I-D. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: julien.meuric@orange.com [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com] > Sent: 08 June 2012 15:42 > To: Daniel King; Adrian Farrel; Quintin Zhao; Fatai Zhang > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk > > Dear co-authors of the aforementioned I-D, > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk? > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) > > A response from each of you is expected. > > Regards, > > JP & Julien > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ___________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce > message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this > message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that > have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. From quintin.zhao@huawei.com Fri Jun 8 09:20:06 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 9D8FA21F8542 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, 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 zWkWAsB1Ac9P for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63AB21F84FB for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AGZ17740; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:17:52 -0700 Received: from QZHAO (10.212.244.218) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:17:52 -0700 From: Quintin Zhao To: , , 'Daniel King' , 'Fatai Zhang' References: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> <00c901cd458e$6e37b6b0$4aa72410$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00c901cd458e$6e37b6b0$4aa72410$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:17:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01aa01cd4592$3ea561a0$bbf024e0$@zhao@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AQEqAI4cSW9jJ0GIg2pVhIk9GGWdH5g3FuuwgAAK4XA= Content-Language: zh-cn X-Originating-IP: [10.212.244.218] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:40:54 -0700 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 08 Jun 2012 16:20:07 -0000 I'm not aware of any IPR on this draft. Thanks, Quintin > -----Original Message----- > From: julien.meuric@orange.com [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com] > Sent: 08 June 2012 15:42 > To: Daniel King; Adrian Farrel; Quintin Zhao; Fatai Zhang > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk > > Dear co-authors of the aforementioned I-D, > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk? > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) > > A response from each of you is expected. > > Regards, > > JP & Julien > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ___________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce > message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this > message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that > have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. From daniel@olddog.co.uk Fri Jun 8 14:58:24 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 927B221F8547 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:58:24 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 hCExUCCh4nU9 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE06521F853F for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58LwHZI004917; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:58:17 +0100 Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58LwG3e004911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:58:17 +0100 From: "Daniel King" To: , "'Adrian Farrel'" , "'Quintin Zhao'" , "'Fatai Zhang'" References: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <22545_1339166986_4FD2110A_22545_14549_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:58:16 +0100 Message-ID: <08f501cd45c1$cf5e7090$6e1b51b0$@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: AQEqAI4cSW9jJ0GIg2pVhIk9GGWdH5g3gfYQ Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 08 Jun 2012 21:58:24 -0000 Dear Julien, all, I am also unaware of any IPR associated with the H-PCE I-D. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: julien.meuric@orange.com [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com] Sent: 08 June 2012 15:42 To: Daniel King; Adrian Farrel; Quintin Zhao; Fatai Zhang Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk Dear co-authors of the aforementioned I-D, Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) A response from each of you is expected. Regards, JP & Julien ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From julien.meuric@orange.com Mon Jun 11 09:16:23 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 35A4A21F85DA for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 LcQ1erddxuYB for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9B921F859A for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 91CA0E30252 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:17:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF34E301B2 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:17:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:16:20 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.71] ([10.193.71.71]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:16:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:16:19 +0200 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pce@ietf.org" References: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2012 16:16:20.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[896102F0:01CD47ED] Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 11 Jun 2012 16:16:23 -0000 Hi authors. Here is the chair review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02. No blocking issue, but a few fixes to consider. ---------- Section 1 ----- Page 4 s/egress in known/egress is known/ ----- Sub-section 1.1 The last 2 paragraphs of section 1.1 (page 5) duplicate with the penultimate one of the common part of section 1 (page 4), which is only 1-page-old: a single place would be enough. ----- Sub-section 1.1 - The phrase "parent domain is used" while only defined in section 1.4. Would a change in section order be possible? - s/See Section 6.2/See Section 5.2/ ----- Sub-section 1.3 s/See section 7/See Section 6/ See also related comment about Section 6 below. ----- Sub-section 1.3.2 When it comes to diversity, the only true requirement is physical diversity. Domain diversity is an indirection allowing to address that requirement in an easier way, however it can be easily made wrong: e.g. 2 MPLS networks over a common optical backbone, carrier's carrier... I would suggest to: - change section 1.3.2 into "Diversity" (at large), - give number 1.3.2.2 to the existing sub-section "Domain Diversity", - add a short sub-section "1.3.2.1 Physical Diversity", mentioning concepts associated to SRLGs and the situation (disclaimer?) I have just introduced. You may drop the sub-section numbers and titles. ----- Sub-section 1.3.4 Instead of "dollar costs", I would have rather expected pound sterling, or copper... A generic phrase would be better at this stage, e.g. "credit" or "currency unit". ----- Sub-section 1.4 There is a reference to RFC 4875, which is P2MP RSVP-TE: is that the intended one? Would not RFC 4726 be more appropriate? ---------- Sub-section 2.1 The section begins by covering 2 path computation cases: BN and PCE. From the 4th paragraph, only the PCE case is named, while both would be relevant. I would suggest to replace the 3 instances of "PCE[s]" in paragraph 4 and 5 by a generic phrase, such as "path computing entity". ----- Sub-section 2.2 - twice: s/to the PCE responsible for/to a PCE responsible for/ - a blank line should be removed ----- Sub-section 2.2.1 - s/to the PCE for the ingress/to a PCE for the ingress/ - s/to the PCE responsible for/to a PCE responsible for/ ---------- Section 3 - s/further in Section 5.3./further in Section 4.3./ - You go quite deep into the details (e.g. zero-cost virtual links), which brings quality to the document. In this context, you may consider adding a sentence or 2 to describe the case when both the child and the parent capabilities are supported by a common PCE, which it is completely allowed by the architecture you describe. It does not change much, but it helps in stressing the flexibility of the architecture and the fact that it does not necessarily add more boxes in the network. ---------- Sub-section 4.1 s/or maybe applied by/or applied by/ ----- Sub-section 4.3 s/described in Section 4./described in Section 4.4./ ----- Sub-section 4.7 - s/Relax the constraints/Relax some of the constraints/ - Is there a particular reason why the cancellation option is missing from the timeout case, while mentioned in the child error case? - In both cases, would not it be relevant to add something like "Prune corresponding domain path from the candidate set"? ----- Sub-section 4.8 (repetition) s/RP object carried within the PCReq/RP object within the PCReq/ ---------- Sub-section 4.8.3 (clarification) s/use the parent as a parent/use the parent-capable as a parent/ s/if the parent determines/if the parent-capable determines/ ----- Sub-section 4.8.4 s/Section 5.4 describes/Section 4.4 describes/ ---------- Section 5 s/(see Section 4)/(see Section 3)/ ---------- Section 6 I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP for TED Synchronization". ---------- Section 7 In line with my comment on Section 3, I propose to add a something like: "Another deployment option is to have each participating SP to act as a parent PCE for (multi-domain) path computations associated to ingress nodes within their own domain." ----- Sub-section 7.1.3 Same comment as above about "punt sterling". ---------- Section 8 (for RFC Editor?) In this document, the 3 ASON references look to me as background information. Based on http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html, I would rather consider them as informative rather than normative references. If nobody cares about for an informative RFC, then the sub-section titles might be useless. I do not know if you have used an automated tool to build the list of references, but the ways authors are mentioned is not consistent: - surname and first name are not all in the same order, especially after an "and", e.g. "J. Ash"; - some dots after the first name initial are missings, e.g. "Medved, J"; - some comas are missing between surname and first name, e.g. "Farrel A."; - the same people are hidden behind different strings, e.g. "Vasseur, J."/"Vasseur, J.P."/"Vasseur, J.-P."/"Vasseur, JP.", "Le Roux, J.L."/"Roux, J."... The 1st authors do not have any physical address: one might wonder if Old Dog Consulting actually exists... ---------- Cheers, Julien Le 08/06/2012 16:37, julien.meuric@orange.com a écrit : > Hi all. > > The document has been stable for a while and the traffic on the list > is low: the time seems appropriate to get many reviews. > > This message starts a PCE WG last call on > draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02; this LC will end on Friday June 22, > noon UTC. > > Please sent your comments to the PCE mailing list. > > JP & Julien > From zhangfatai@huawei.com Tue Jun 12 01:03:33 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 B8B8C21F85E7 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.788 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] 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 OBnZRMsQxvQh for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F7E21F85DF for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AHC62771; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:02:38 -0700 Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:02:40 -0700 Received: from SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.203]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:02:23 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" , Daniel King , Adrian Farrel , Quintin zhao Thread-Topic: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk Thread-Index: AQHNRYX1WHvNGl4rKEOZvGfnqDxnjpb2V/Ag Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:02:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <27559_1339166985_4FD21109_27559_13749_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <27559_1339166985_4FD21109_27559_13749_1_4FD20F4D.3040408@orange.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.73.148] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogSVBSIENoZWNrIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWhp?= =?gb2312?b?ZXJhcmNoeS1md2s=?= 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, 12 Jun 2012 08:03:33 -0000 SGkgSnVsaWVuIGFuZCBhbGwsDQoNCkkgYW0gbm90IGF3YXJlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIgdGhhdCBhcHBs aWVzIHRvIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuDQoNCg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCg0KRmF0YWkNCg0KDQotLS0tLdPKvP7U rbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzoganVsaWVuLm1ldXJpY0BvcmFuZ2UuY29tIFttYWlsdG86anVsaWVu Lm1ldXJpY0BvcmFuZ2UuY29tXSANCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDEyxOo21MI4yNUgMjI6NDINCsrVvP7I yzogRGFuaWVsIEtpbmc7IEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWw7IFF1aW50aW4gemhhbzsgRmF0YWkgWmhhbmcN CrOty806IHBjZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0K1vfM4jogSVBSIENoZWNrIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWhp ZXJhcmNoeS1md2sNCg0KRGVhciBjby1hdXRob3JzIG9mIHRoZSBhZm9yZW1lbnRpb25lZCBJLUQs DQoNCkFyZSB5b3UgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1w Y2UtaGllcmFyY2h5LWZ3az8NCklmIHNvLCBoYXMgdGhpcyBJUFIgYmVlbiBkaXNjbG9zZWQgaW4g Y29tcGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIElFVEYgSVBSIHJ1bGVzPyANCihzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAz NjY5IGFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpDQoNCkEgcmVzcG9uc2UgZnJvbSBlYWNoIG9m IHlvdSBpcyBleHBlY3RlZC4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCg0KSlAgJiBKdWxpZW4NCg0KDQpfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQoNCkNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgZXQgc2VzIHBpZWNlcyBqb2ludGVzIHBldXZlbnQgY29udGVuaXIgZGVz IGluZm9ybWF0aW9ucyBjb25maWRlbnRpZWxsZXMgb3UgcHJpdmlsZWdpZWVzIGV0IG5lIGRvaXZl bnQgZG9uYw0KcGFzIGV0cmUgZGlmZnVzZXMsIGV4cGxvaXRlcyBvdSBjb3BpZXMgc2FucyBhdXRv cmlzYXRpb24uIFNpIHZvdXMgYXZleiByZWN1IGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgcGFyIGVycmV1ciwgdmV1aWxs ZXogbGUgc2lnbmFsZXINCmEgbCdleHBlZGl0ZXVyIGV0IGxlIGRldHJ1aXJlIGFpbnNpIHF1ZSBs ZXMgcGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMuIExlcyBtZXNzYWdlcyBlbGVjdHJvbmlxdWVzIGV0YW50IHN1c2Nl cHRpYmxlcyBkJ2FsdGVyYXRpb24sDQpGcmFuY2UgVGVsZWNvbSAtIE9yYW5nZSBkZWNsaW5lIHRv dXRlIHJlc3BvbnNhYmlsaXRlIHNpIGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYSBldGUgYWx0ZXJlLCBkZWZvcm1lIG91 IGZhbHNpZmllLiBNZXJjaS4NCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgbWF5 IGNvbnRhaW4gY29uZmlkZW50aWFsIG9yIHByaXZpbGVnZWQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGhhdCBtYXkg YmUgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGJ5IGxhdzsNCnRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCwgdXNl ZCBvciBjb3BpZWQgd2l0aG91dCBhdXRob3Jpc2F0aW9uLg0KSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQg dGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBkZWxldGUg dGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQpBcyBlbWFpbHMgbWF5IGJlIGFsdGVy ZWQsIEZyYW5jZSBUZWxlY29tIC0gT3JhbmdlIGlzIG5vdCBsaWFibGUgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2VzIHRo YXQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIG1vZGlmaWVkLCBjaGFuZ2VkIG9yIGZhbHNpZmllZC4NClRoYW5rIHlvdS4N Cg0K From daniel@olddog.co.uk Thu Jun 14 00:41:42 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 632E821F85B1 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:41:42 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 dplXZd4fA+yn for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E0321F8526 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5E7fcMb031556; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:41:39 +0100 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 q5E7famL031546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:41:36 +0100 From: "Daniel King" To: "'Julien Meuric'" , References: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000301cd4a01$1dfb3ec0$59f1bc40$@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: AQFRAt9MJ/7Gx3DcXMmjTM5HBltshAL9sNi/l9oORSA= Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 14 Jun 2012 07:41:42 -0000 Thanks Julien,=20 We will address these, along with other comments received during LC, = after the LC finishes.=20 Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Julien Meuric Sent: 11 June 2012 17:16 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk Hi authors. Here is the chair review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02. No blocking issue, but a few fixes to consider. ---------- Section 1 ----- Page 4 s/egress in known/egress is known/ ----- Sub-section 1.1 The last 2 paragraphs of section 1.1 (page 5) duplicate with the = penultimate one of the common part of section 1 (page 4), which is only 1-page-old: a single place would be enough. ----- Sub-section 1.1 - The phrase "parent domain is used" while only defined in section 1.4.=20 Would a change in section order be possible? - s/See Section 6.2/See Section 5.2/ ----- Sub-section 1.3 s/See section 7/See Section 6/ See also related comment about Section 6 below. ----- Sub-section 1.3.2 When it comes to diversity, the only true requirement is physical = diversity. Domain diversity is an indirection allowing to address that requirement = in an easier way, however it can be easily made wrong: e.g.=20 2 MPLS networks over a common optical backbone, carrier's carrier... I = would suggest to: - change section 1.3.2 into "Diversity" (at large), - give number 1.3.2.2 to the existing sub-section "Domain Diversity", - add a short sub-section "1.3.2.1 Physical Diversity", mentioning = concepts associated to SRLGs and the situation (disclaimer?) I have just = introduced. You may drop the sub-section numbers and titles. ----- Sub-section 1.3.4 Instead of "dollar costs", I would have rather expected pound sterling, = or copper... A generic phrase would be better at this stage, e.g.=20 "credit" or "currency unit". ----- Sub-section 1.4 There is a reference to RFC 4875, which is P2MP RSVP-TE: is that the intended one? Would not RFC 4726 be more appropriate? ---------- Sub-section 2.1 The section begins by covering 2 path computation cases: BN and PCE.=20 From the 4th paragraph, only the PCE case is named, while both would be relevant. I would suggest to replace the 3 instances of "PCE[s]" in paragraph 4 and 5 by a generic phrase, such as "path computing entity". ----- Sub-section 2.2 - twice: s/to the PCE responsible for/to a PCE responsible for/ - a blank line should be removed ----- Sub-section 2.2.1 - s/to the PCE for the ingress/to a PCE for the ingress/ - s/to the PCE responsible for/to a PCE responsible for/ ---------- Section 3 - s/further in Section 5.3./further in Section 4.3./ - You go quite deep into the details (e.g. zero-cost virtual links), = which brings quality to the document. In this context, you may consider adding = a sentence or 2 to describe the case when both the child and the parent capabilities are supported by a common PCE, which it is completely = allowed by the architecture you describe. It does not change much, but it helps = in stressing the flexibility of the architecture and the fact that it does = not necessarily add more boxes in the network. ---------- Sub-section 4.1 s/or maybe applied by/or applied by/ ----- Sub-section 4.3 s/described in Section 4./described in Section 4.4./ ----- Sub-section 4.7 - s/Relax the constraints/Relax some of the constraints/ - Is there a particular reason why the cancellation option is missing = from the timeout case, while mentioned in the child error case? - In both cases, would not it be relevant to add something like "Prune corresponding domain path from the candidate set"? ----- Sub-section 4.8 (repetition) s/RP object carried within the PCReq/RP object within the PCReq/ ---------- Sub-section 4.8.3 (clarification) s/use the parent as a parent/use the parent-capable as a parent/ s/if = the parent determines/if the parent-capable determines/ ----- Sub-section 4.8.4 s/Section 5.4 describes/Section 4.4 describes/ ---------- Section 5 s/(see Section 4)/(see Section 3)/ ---------- Section 6 I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the = text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 = references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in there, I = would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag is all right) = to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP for TED Synchronization". ---------- Section 7 In line with my comment on Section 3, I propose to add a something like: = "Another deployment option is to have each participating SP to act as a parent PCE for (multi-domain) path computations associated to ingress = nodes within their own domain." ----- Sub-section 7.1.3 Same comment as above about "punt sterling". ---------- Section 8 (for RFC Editor?) In this document, the 3 ASON references look to me as background information. Based on http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html, I would rather consider them as informative rather than normative references. If nobody cares about for an informative RFC, then the sub-section titles = might be useless. I do not know if you have used an automated tool to build the list of references, but the ways authors are mentioned is not consistent: - surname and first name are not all in the same order, especially after = an "and", e.g. "J. Ash"; - some dots after the first name initial are missings, e.g. "Medved, J"; - some comas are missing between surname and first name, e.g. "Farrel = A."; - the same people are hidden behind different strings, e.g. "Vasseur, J."/"Vasseur, J.P."/"Vasseur, J.-P."/"Vasseur, JP.", "Le Roux, = J.L."/"Roux, J."... The 1st authors do not have any physical address: one might wonder if = Old Dog Consulting actually exists... ---------- Cheers, Julien Le 08/06/2012 16:37, julien.meuric@orange.com a =E9crit : > Hi all. > > The document has been stable for a while and the traffic on the list=20 > is low: the time seems appropriate to get many reviews. > > This message starts a PCE WG last call on=20 > draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02; this LC will end on Friday June 22,=20 > noon UTC. > > Please sent your comments to the PCE mailing list. > > JP & Julien > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From julien.meuric@orange.com Fri Jun 22 06:08:58 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 098BA21F8600 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, 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 LXWMSO1wEU1G for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EED121F85FF for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F1E92E301DB for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:09:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1ADE301B5 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:09:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:08:56 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.71] ([10.193.71.71]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:08:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE46E67.9080402@orange.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:08:55 +0200 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2012 13:08:56.0081 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DF30010:01CD5078] Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 22 Jun 2012 13:08:58 -0000 Hi. This WG LC has ended. Authors, please address or discuss received comments and publish an updated I-D. Regards, JP & Julien Le 08/06/2012 16:37, julien.meuric@orange.com a écrit : > Hi all. > > The document has been stable for a while and the traffic on the list > is low: the time seems appropriate to get many reviews. > > This message starts a PCE WG last call on > draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-02; this LC will end on Friday June 22, > noon UTC. > > Please sent your comments to the PCE mailing list. > > JP & Julien > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 27 00:26:40 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 D744421F85D7; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:26:40 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 ihnpuEhT+Osn; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A6921F8579; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:26:40 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.21 Message-ID: <20120627072640.717.27127.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:26:40 -0700 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:26:41 -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 Group of= the IETF. Title : Document: Author(s) : Tomohiro Otani Kenichi Ogaki Diego Caviglia Fatai Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2012-06-27 Abstract: The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi- protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of PCE (Path computation element). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From zhangfatai@huawei.com Wed Jun 27 00:34:25 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 7AD8121F85F1 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:34:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.885 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] 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 avsXUV7omq2M for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F61121F85E6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:34:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 AHG05049; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:34:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:33:43 -0700 Received: from SZXEML419-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.158) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:33:39 -0700 Received: from SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.166]) by szxeml419-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.158]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:33:32 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHNVDZAMUsFbanNT0mOckBAJ4hTfpcNxI6A Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:33:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120627072640.717.27127.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120627072640.717.27127.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.152] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "ogaki@kddilabs.jp" , "Margaria, Cyril \(NSN - DE/Munich\)" Subject: [Pce] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEktRCBBY3Rpb246IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWdt?= =?gb2312?b?cGxzLWFwcy1yZXEtMDYudHh0?= 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, 27 Jun 2012 07:34:25 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgKFBDRVAgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRz IGZvciBHTVBMUykgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VibWl0dGVkLg0KDQpUaGUgYXV0aG9ycyB0aGluayB0aGF0 IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgcmVhZHkgZm9yIExDLg0KDQpDaGFuZ2VzIGFyZSBhcyBmb2xsb3dzOg0K KDEpIExhYmVsIGNvbnN0cmFpbnRzIGZvciBQQ0VQIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gcmVm aW5lZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMSBhbmQgNC4yIHJlc3BlY3RpdmVseS4NCigyKSBTb21lIGVkaXRv cmlhbCByZWZpbmVtZW50cy4NCg0KQ29tbWVudHMgYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUuDQoNCg0KDQpUaGFua3MN Cg0KRmF0YWkNCg0KDQotLS0tLdPKvP7Urbz+LS0tLS0NCreivP7IyzogcGNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpwY2UtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDEyxOo21MIyN8jVIDE1OjI3DQrK1bz+yMs6IGktZC1hbm5v dW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZw0Ks63LzTogcGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBbUGNlXSBJLUQgQWN0aW9u OiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1nbXBscy1hcHMtcmVxLTA2LnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgTmV3IEludGVybmV0 LURyYWZ0IGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBvbi1saW5lIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBkaXJl Y3Rvcmllcy4NCiBUaGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGEgd29yayBpdGVtIG9mIHRoZSBQYXRoIENvbXB1dGF0 aW9uIEVsZW1lbnQgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBvZiB0aGUgSUVURi4NCg0KCVRpdGxlICAgICAgICAg ICA6IERvY3VtZW50Og0KCUF1dGhvcihzKSAgICAgICA6IFRvbW9oaXJvIE90YW5pDQogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEtlbmljaGkgT2dha2kNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgRGllZ28gQ2F2aWdsaWENCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRmF0YWkgWmhhbmcN CglGaWxlbmFtZSAgICAgICAgOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBjZS1nbXBscy1hcHMtcmVxLTA2LnR4dA0K CVBhZ2VzICAgICAgICAgICA6IDE1DQoJRGF0ZSAgICAgICAgICAgIDogMjAxMi0wNi0yNw0KDQpB YnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIFRoZSBpbml0aWFsIGVmZm9ydCBvZiBQQ0UgV0cgaXMgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5 IGZvY3VzZWQgb24gTVBMUyAoTXVsdGktDQogICBwcm90b2NvbCBsYWJlbCBzd2l0Y2hpbmcpLiBB cyBhIG5leHQgc3RlcCwgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBkZXNjcmliZXMNCiAgIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgcmVxdWly ZW1lbnRzIGZvciBHTVBMUyAoR2VuZXJhbGl6ZWQgTVBMUykgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gb2YNCiAgIFBD RSAoUGF0aCBjb21wdXRhdGlvbiBlbGVtZW50KS4NCg0KDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIGRhdGF0cmFja2Vy IHN0YXR1cyBwYWdlIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzOg0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRm Lm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wY2UtZ21wbHMtYXBzLXJlcQ0KDQpUaGVyZSdzIGFsc28gYSBo dG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdDoNCmh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1s L2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWdtcGxzLWFwcy1yZXEtMDYNCg0KQSBkaWZmIGZyb20gcHJldmlvdXMg dmVyc2lvbiBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQ6DQpodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91 cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGNlLWdtcGxzLWFwcy1yZXEtMDYNCg0KDQpJbnRlcm5ldC1EcmFmdHMg YXJlIGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIGJ5IGFub255bW91cyBGVFAgYXQ6DQpmdHA6Ly9mdHAuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzLw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KUGNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KUGNlQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3BjZQ0K From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jun 27 09:48:41 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 3204E21F8775 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, 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 MY-W8U+lGcwT for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E9421F8773 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5RGmbGO023008; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:48:37 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5RGmZXN022988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:48:36 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Julien Meuric'" , References: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: <074e01cd5484$b220c240$166246c0$@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: AQFRAt9MJ/7Gx3DcXMmjTM5HBltshAL9sNi/l+8VFZA= Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:48:41 -0000 Hi Julien, Thanks for this review. We are making all the changes except: > Section 6 > I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like > draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the > text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 > references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in > there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag > is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP > for TED Synchronization". We feel this section serves two purposes: 1. explain how BGP-TE is not necessarily a suitable substitute for H-PCE 2. show how BGP-TE may be a good northbound The first point (1st two paras of section 6) should stay. Second point is 3rd para of section 6. It is quite short. We agree it could be in applicability statement and we will add a forward pointer, but we think it is useful to keep the text here as well. As a compromise, we have split it out into a separate section named as you suggested. New revision soon. Cheers, Adrian (and probably Dan and the others :-) From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 27 14:59:14 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 0A6CE21F8600; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:59:14 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 esZ7uzwxCvOo; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54BD21F85F4; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:59:12 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120627215912.3577.90224.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:59:12 -0700 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:59:14 -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 Group of= the IETF. Title : The Application of the Path Computation Element Architec= ture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS Author(s) : Daniel King Adrian Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-06-27 Abstract: Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture. Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to derive an optimal path. This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From daniel@olddog.co.uk Wed Jun 27 15:01:12 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 41A3321F85F6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:01:12 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 8hOaBE2znLR7 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF6921F85F4 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5RM1808009935 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:01:08 +0100 Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5RM170s009929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:01:08 +0100 From: "Daniel King" To: References: <20120627215912.3577.90224.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120627215912.3577.90224.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:01:03 +0100 Message-ID: <001501cd54b0$58ec7080$0ac55180$@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: AQHMWrSHRdi5F6fadMiAXfxMFva8xJcQqvDA Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:01:12 -0000 Dear Julien, All. As promised, please find a new revision addressing the LC comments. Once again, thank you Julien for such a detailed review. Thanks, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: 27 June 2012 22:59 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS Author(s) : Daniel King Adrian Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-06-27 Abstract: Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture. Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to derive an optimal path. This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce From julien.meuric@orange.com Thu Jun 28 08:43:51 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 E672621F8585 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 4NlD6kGifgDz for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30DE21F8582 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 271F05D8854; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:43:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5B55D8160; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:43:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:43:48 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.79] ([10.193.71.79]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:43:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEC7BB4.6030100@orange.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:43:48 +0200 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <22542_1339166261_4FD20E34_22542_6081_1_4FD20E2E.7020507@orange.com> <4FD619D3.3060801@orange.com> <074e01cd5484$b220c240$166246c0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <074e01cd5484$b220c240$166246c0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2012 15:43:48.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF1DB4A0:01CD5544] Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk 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, 28 Jun 2012 15:43:52 -0000 Hi Adrian. The 1st purpose you advocate is indeed relevant in the document. Then, there is no reason to drop only the 3rd paragraph. The proposed sub-section looks all right to me and, obviously, it does not preclude to mention it in others I-Ds. I think this addresses my comment. Cheers, Julien Le 27/06/2012 18:48, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for this review. We are making all the changes except: > >> Section 6 >> I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like >> draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the >> text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 >> references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in >> there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag >> is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP >> for TED Synchronization". > We feel this section serves two purposes: > 1. explain how BGP-TE is not necessarily a suitable substitute for H-PCE > 2. show how BGP-TE may be a good northbound > > The first point (1st two paras of section 6) should stay. > Second point is 3rd para of section 6. It is quite short. We agree it could be > in applicability statement and we will add a forward pointer, but we think it is > useful to keep the text here as well. As a compromise, we have split it out into > a separate section named as you suggested. > > New revision soon. > > Cheers, > Adrian (and probably Dan and the others :-) > From julien.meuric@orange.com Thu Jun 28 08:58:59 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 951A121F85AC for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, 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 4mg07k3mZuVR for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B591021F85A8 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id ABE0E7E4003; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B7F7E4002; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:58:57 +0200 Received: from [10.193.71.79] ([10.193.71.79]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:58:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEC7F40.5070405@orange.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:58:56 +0200 From: Julien Meuric Organization: France Telecom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel King References: <20120627215912.3577.90224.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001501cd54b0$58ec7080$0ac55180$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <001501cd54b0$58ec7080$0ac55180$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2012 15:58:56.0887 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC94F870:01CD5546] Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:58:59 -0000 Hi Dan. Thanks for addressing my comments. I believe there is just one question pending, about section 4.7: "Is there a particular reason why the cancellation option is missing from the timeout case, while mentioned in the child error case?" Cheers, Julien Le 28/06/2012 00:01, Daniel King a écrit : > Dear Julien, All. > > As promised, please find a new revision addressing the LC comments. > > Once again, thank you Julien for such a detailed review. > > Thanks, > Dan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > internet-drafts@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of > the IETF. > > Title : The Application of the Path Computation Element > Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS > Author(s) : Daniel King > Adrian Farrel > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt > Pages : 31 > Date : 2012-06-27 > > Abstract: > Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across > multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS > networks presents a problem because no single point of path > computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each > domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation > Element (PCE) architecture. > > Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques > can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are > simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are > also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. > Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is > no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the > Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to > derive an optimal path. > > This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when > the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document > shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum > sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path > to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between > domains. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > From daniel@olddog.co.uk Thu Jun 28 15:19:01 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 73DFF21F85B1 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:19:01 -0700 (PDT) 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=[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 M5YEvpmKdneQ for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E5F21F858F for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5SMIwAh020097; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:18:58 +0100 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 q5SMIvHM020084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:18:58 +0100 From: "Daniel King" To: "'Julien Meuric'" References: <20120627215912.3577.90224.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <001501cd54b0$58ec7080$0ac55180$@olddog.co.uk> <4FEC7F40.5070405@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEC7F40.5070405@orange.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:18:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01cd557c$00b85b00$02291100$@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: AQHMWrSHRdi5F6fadMiAXfxMFva8xAHnZHjrAp4pcR+W7hUGwA== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:19:01 -0000 Hi Julien,=20 Ah, indeed. Often my Parents would send me a request which I would = ignore. It is reasonable that a Parent would let an unresponsive or misbehaving Child that they have given up on them.=20 I will submit the updated version momentarily.=20 Br, Dan.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com]=20 Sent: 28 June 2012 16:59 To: Daniel King Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt Hi Dan. Thanks for addressing my comments. I believe there is just one question pending, about section 4.7: "Is = there a particular reason why the cancellation option is missing from the = timeout case, while mentioned in the child error case?" Cheers, Julien Le 28/06/2012 00:01, Daniel King a =E9crit : > Dear Julien, All. > > As promised, please find a new revision addressing the LC comments. > > Once again, thank you Julien for such a detailed review. > > Thanks, > Dan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 > internet-drafts@ietf.org > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working=20 > Group of the IETF. > > Title : The Application of the Path Computation Element > Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS > Author(s) : Daniel King > Adrian Farrel > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt > Pages : 31 > Date : 2012-06-27 > > Abstract: > Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across > multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS > networks presents a problem because no single point of path > computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each > domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation > Element (PCE) architecture. > > Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various = techniques > can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are > simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection = are > also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. > Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is > no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the > Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used = to > derive an optimal path. > > This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path = when > the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document > shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the = optimum > sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end = path > to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship = between > domains. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 28 15:28:34 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 4E84921F85FD; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:28:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, 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 ydA8vXMjnLIZ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A1221F85F6; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT) 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: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120628222833.15954.77725.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:28:33 -0700 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04.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: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:28:34 -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 Group of= the IETF. Title : The Application of the Path Computation Element Architec= ture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS Author(s) : Daniel King Adrian Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture. Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to derive an optimal path. This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/