Hi all,
New version submitted.
It is adding “update” of RFC7470 and addressing comments from a few other mail
threads. Please let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks,
Samuel
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 3:50 PM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; Cheng Li
<c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT)
Hi Adrian,
Do you still think that “update” of RFC7470 is not good solution or we have
consensus to proceed with that option? Only alternative solution proposed in
the mail thread seems to be Errata, but my understanding is that Dhruv
explained that even that is not meant to be used for case like this.
If that works for you, then I can submit version proposed in this mail thread
(updating RFC7470) and include proposed changes from 2 other mail threads
related to draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor.
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
From: Cheng Li
<c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 3:36 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>;
adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com<mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>>; Paul
Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The IESG
<i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT)
Well. If the PEN is the right term, then we should use PEN in this document.
A ‘update’ seems the shortest path to address this, and IMHO, updating a term
definition may not require to implement all the features defined in that
document. Please educate me if I am wrong.
But if this is not working, then we might say: We are using PEN in this
document, the one mentioned in RFC9371. The EN defined in RFC7470 might need
some update by a errata) . In this way, we make this update as an independent
action of RFC7470.
To me, it is not a big problem, let ADs decide what we should go. As one of the
author, I am ok with both directions.
Thanks,
Cheng
From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:04 PM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
<ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The IESG
<i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT)
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 5:14 PM Adrian Farrel
<adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Dhruv.
Like I said, I don’t much mind.
But, this is not the correct way to fix a debatable citation in another RFC.
That should be done with an editorial erratum.
Dhruv: Hmmm, but we do say that Errata are meant to fix errors at the time the
document was published [1], which is not the case here as RFC 9371 did not
exist back then!
This use of “updates” leaves the implementer of 7470 trying to work out whether
they have to pick up any technical changes from the new I-D.
Or will the Abstract of the next revision include the text…
This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying a reference.
…and the Introduction…
This document updates RFC 7470 by clarifying the reference for the
definition and management of Private Enterprise Numbers. It does
not make any technical changes to the procedures or encodings
defined in RFC 7470.
Dhruv: Samuel proposed this text in the abstract in the attachment.
This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA registry for
managing Enterprise Numbers.
BTW, if a new “Updates” clause is added, doesn’t the document need to go for
IETF last call again (because the first last call failed to call this out)?
Dhruv: I thought that was done only for DownRef. I vaguely remember "discuss"
about changing the metadata during IESG discussions and not repeating LC?
Anyways, we can let the responsible AD do the right thing :)
Thanks!
Dhruv
Cheers,
Adrian
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-processing-of-rfc-errata-for-the-ietf-stream-20210507/
From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
Sent: 20 November 2024 11:28
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
<ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Paul
Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The IESG
<i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT)
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 4:36 PM Adrian Farrel
<adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm one of the authors of 7470.
I don't mind much about the outcome of this discussion, but the definition of
"Updates" *still* remains occluded ☹ [1]
7322 no longer provides a definition, and the old definition in 2223 was, I
think, confusing.
IMHO, "B updates A" means that to achieve an implementation of A, one should
also implement B.
It does not mean "B builds on A" (else, pretty much any Internet protocol work
would be an update to RFC 791.
In the case of this draft, a new feature is being added to PCEP. In order to
implement this document, you need to implement at least parts of 7470. But
anyone implementing 7470 can just go ahead without any changes.
Dhruv: But in this case we are proposing to use "updates" because we want to
update a sentence in RFC 7470.
This is the proposed text change in Samuel's attachment -
[RFC7470] stated that:
"Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an
IANA registry [RFC2578]".
This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with:
"Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the
"Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in
[RFC9371]."
Cheers,
Adrian
[1] Any IESG wishing to clarify this through a statement would be greatly
helping the community and reducing the recurrence of this discussion.
Dhruv: I hope RSWG picks up
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/
Thanks!
Dhruv
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
<ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Sent: 20 November 2024 10:38
To: Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io<mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; The
IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Re: Paul Wouters' No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: (with COMMENT)
Hi Paul,
There was already discussion whether update of RFC7470 should be done or not -
there was not strong opinion against, but also no strong opinion for doing it,
but it is finally probably better to do it.
Attaching updated version. Please let me know if it is satisfying your comment.
Thanks,
Samuel
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 1:13 AM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc:
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>;
pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>;
d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>;
d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12:
(with COMMENT)
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed
through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private
Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA registry are same
thing as Enterprise Numbers referred in this document and [RFC7470]
Does this mean this document Updates: 7470 ? Because it currently does not.
The use of "clarifies" versus "updates" here seems uhm convenient :)
--- Begin Message ---
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13.txt has
been successfully submitted by Samuel Sidor and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Revision: 13
Title: Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE.
Date: 2024-11-25
Group: pce
Pages: 12
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/
HTML:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13.html
HTMLized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13
Abstract:
This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) that enable the inclusion of vendor-
specific information in stateful PCE operations. These extensions
allow vendors to incorporate proprietary data within PCEP messages,
facilitating enhanced network optimization and functionality in
environments requiring vendor-specific features. The extensions
maintain compatibility with existing PCEP implementations and promote
interoperability across diverse network deployments. RFC 7470
defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in stateless
PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) messages. This document extends
this capability for the Stateful PCEP messages.
This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA
registry for managing Enterprise Numbers.
The IETF Secretariat
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
