[Pce] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08

2025-02-12 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hi Pavan, Thanks for the detailed response. In line… = Management Considerations = The PCE working group produced recommendations to guide the inclusion of manageability considerations sections in documents that it produces. Those recommendations made a positive difference to the quality

[Pce] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Adrian, Mahesh, When the protocol extension was initially defined, the primary motivation was to find parity for RSVP-TE paths with the color encoding used in SR policy paths (which uses Extended ASSOCIATION). We also briefly contemplated using an ASSOCIATION object but introduced a new TLV in the

[Pce] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Adrian Farrel
Interesting. Thanks. I think there are possibly two meanings for “intent”: * How the network is meant to manage and operate to deliver a particular TE tunnel. I.e., what we would like the TE tunnel to be like. * What the TE tunnel is like. I.e., how we can use it to deliver a ser

[Pce] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Adrian Farrel
I, too, was stimulated by the response on this point. I am certainly not saying that the WG must change its approach here. But, given that a mechanism already exists to carry information describing how to associate traffic with an LSP, I thought that there should be some discussion (not necessa

[Pce] Re: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Erik Kline
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:32 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > Erik, > > Thanks for the review. Please see the inline below (prefixed VPB). > > Regards, > -Pavan > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:23 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Erik Kline has entered the following ba

[Pce] Re: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Erik, Thanks for the review. Please see the inline below (prefixed VPB). Regards, -Pavan On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:23 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: No Objection > > When respon

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-21.txt

2025-02-12 Thread internet-drafts
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-21.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF. Title: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths Authors: Mike K

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu-07.txt

2025-02-12 Thread internet-drafts
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu-07.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF. Title: Support for Path MTU (PMTU) in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) Authors: Shuping Peng Cheng Li

[Pce] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2025-02-12 Thread Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Adrian, Please see inline for responses (prefixed [Pavan]) Regards, -Pavan On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 7:11 AM Adrian Farrel wrote: > Interesting. Thanks. > > > > I think there are possibly two meanings for “intent”: > >- How the network is meant to manage and operate to deliver a >particu