Subject: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt

From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:23:24 +0000

Hi, PCE'er,

    I just noticed that this WG document has been updated without any WG decisions/discussions. As I recall, there is no sufficient discussion during last IETF meeting, nor any public email discussion, with regard to how to proceed with this WG document. As a young engineer involved in IETF work, a standard way for updating a WG document, from what I observe, should it be that any modifications are based on the WG discussion?

    During last IETF meeting, I presented a proposal with regard to "stateful PCE" work. To state again, we would like to see this work follows a standard PCE WG procedure. By saying a standard procedure, I mean that "stateful PCE" should be driven by applicability/framework/requirements, then protocol extensions. Just to give a few examples which is currently listed as PCE WG drafts as well as RFCs: pcep extension for gmpls, inter-layer, hierarchical PCE and P2MP etc. All of them moved forward with applicability/framework/requirements first. There must be a valid reason for this rationale, right? I do not see why we should treat this draft as an exception.

    Unfortunately, we were not given sufficient time for a WG discussion on our proposal. However, as suggested by Ed., a bunch of us (Ramon, Oscar, Fatai, Young and me) had an offline discussion with him, and the group roughly agreed to move forward to the direction that we proposed above. 

    However, I don’t see this draft is moving to that direction from the updated WG draft, even though one of our suggestions (i.e., GMPLS should be covered) is partially captured in the updated WG draft. 

    Therefore, I would like to request more discussion in the PCE list on how to move forward stateful PCE topic. 

Regards,

Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: 2012年10月16日 6:08
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02.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           : PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
	Author(s)       : Edward Crabbe
                          Jan Medved
                          Ina Minei
                          Robert Varga
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02.txt
	Pages           : 49
	Date            : 2012-10-15

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
   information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for
   synchronization or PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.  This document
   describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
   MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels via PCEP.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

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

---

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:43:23 -0700

Xian,

This is not accurate I'm afraid.  We have presented the original
(pre-split) draft at almost every meeting for the past several years, and
have had WG consensus on it's acceptance as a WG document on both list and
in meetings. as well as  We have discussed the split at the last
three consecutive IETF meetings, and explicitly asked the chairs in
Vancouver.  This document is simply the core framework split from the
/already accepted/ working group document, and the chairs had agreed to
accept the core document as a draft given that the parent doc had already
been accepted and (assuming near content parity).

So yeah, there's been quite a bit of discussion on this over a number of
years. :P

I'm not sure that issuing an applicability draft first is mandatory SOP;
 there are a number of drafts that simply have an applicability section
within the draft (as ours does): presenting applicability, requirements
and framework sequentially.

With regard to our (now public) conversation, you've misinterpreted.   Last
IETF we discussed moving the applicability section into the a single
document with you (without conclusion I might note), which has nothing to
do with this draft.  We tentatively agreed to move ahead with merging the
already extant applicability section of our draft into yours as well as
assuming co-authorship.  We also agreed that the *framework* must provide
the capability to create general extensions for MPLS & GMPLS etc (thus
/passing mention/ of GMPLS AND the reference to *YOUR* document.

cheersm

  -ed

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Zhangxian (Xian) <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Hi, PCE'er,
>
>     I just noticed that this WG document has been updated without any WG
> decisions/discussions. As I recall, there is no sufficient discussion
> during last IETF meeting, nor any public email discussion, with regard to
> how to proceed with this WG document. As a young engineer involved in IETF
> work, a standard way for updating a WG document, from what I observe,
> should it be that any modifications are based on the WG discussion?
>
>     During last IETF meeting, I presented a proposal with regard to
> "stateful PCE" work. To state again, we would like to see this work follows
> a standard PCE WG procedure. By saying a standard procedure, I mean that
> "stateful PCE" should be driven by applicability/framework/requirements,
> then protocol extensions. Just to give a few examples which is currently
> listed as PCE WG drafts as well as RFCs: pcep extension for gmpls,
> inter-layer, hierarchical PCE and P2MP etc. All of them moved forward with
> applicability/framework/requirements first. There must be a valid reason
> for this rationale, right? I do not see why we should treat this draft as
> an exception.
>
>     Unfortunately, we were not given sufficient time for a WG discussion
> on our proposal. However, as suggested by Ed., a bunch of us (Ramon, Oscar,
> Fatai, Young and me) had an offline discussion with him, and the group
> roughly agreed to move forward to the direction that we proposed above.
>
>     However, I don’t see this draft is moving to that direction from the
> updated WG draft, even though one of our suggestions (i.e., GMPLS should be
> covered) is partially captured in the updated WG draft.
>