Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why /
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 5, 2020, at 13:24, Jonathan Hardwick
> wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@
Support as co-author
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 4, 2020, at 07:13, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-association-policy [1]. Please indicate your support
> or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of
> the dr
I support the adoption given points rased by Dhruv are addressed ( post
adoption in fine)
Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 8, 2021, 1:32 AM -0800, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> Speaking as a WG participant...
>
> I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
> I have one
Hi,
It is the job of ingress router to impose the SID(label) stack that would
include one or more pairs of ELI/EL. This is always a subject to MSD
limitations (per platform/per LC if applicable).
The draft is not discussing implications of these limitations , which I find
rather unfortunate.
+1
Regards,
Jeff
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 14:13, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
>
> +1 thanks Julien, also support the document.
>
> Did not recognize that binding label and path segment we're requesting bits
> as well. Seems like this draft is pre-empting the inevitable exhaustio
Hi Hari,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Mar 18, 2021, at 10:10, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for WG Last Call on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the li
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 09:00, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi WG
>
> +1. Support adoption. Provides a nice and simple way to encode multiple
> paths, whether they be weighted or for backup purposes. Fills needed gaps in
> the Unicast SR Polic
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 07:01, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This e-mail starts an adoption poll for
> draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional-08 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is
> ready to become a PCE WG item?
>
> Please respond to the PCE list, incl
Hi,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Sep 26, 2022, at 20:19, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
> I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
> in accordance with IET
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:12 PM, "Julien Meuric" wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some support for
> adopting draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01 as a PCE WG item.
>
> Would you be in favor/opposed (and why if you
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric
Organization: Orange
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 1:22 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org"
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-questions-04
>Hi all.
>
>This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-questions-
Hi,
While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to:
-BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA issues had
be solved
-Policies framework is comprehensive
-BGP infra in most cases is already in place
-RR construct provides hierarchy
-many mo
Hi,
Support as co-author.
Thanks!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 14, 2014, at 3:07 AM, "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)"
> wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
> draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt and this work
> has considerably progressed in other WG.
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
>>
>>We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
>>draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt and this work
>>has considerably progressed in other WG.
>>
>>Are you in favor of adopting draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as
>>a PCE WG document ?
>
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: "julien.meu...@orange.com"
Organization: Orange
Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 9:18 AM
To: "pce@ietf.org"
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01
>Dear a
I fully agree with the comments and thanks Jon for bringing it up.
We will work to address it.
Regards,
Jeff
On Mar 25, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Dhruv Dhody
mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1, I agree with Jon.
Perhaps a new METRIC type for MSD?
Regards,
Dhruv
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:23 PM,
ietf-pce-segment-rout...@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@tools.ietf.org>"
mailto:draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@tools.ietf.org>>,
"pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" mailto:pce@ietf.org>>, Jeff
Tantsura mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>&
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
On 11/4/15, 09:36, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Following our discussion during the WG meeting yesterday, do you support
>the adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03 as a starting point
>for a new PCE WG item? If not, please mot
Hi Robert,
I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the
implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.
I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.
Chee
Hi Dhruv,
Support, very much needed!
Thanks,
Jeff
On 6/9/16, 5:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" wrote:
>Hi WG,
>
>In PCE IANA registry [http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep] we do not have any
>codepoints for experimental usage. As we work on some new experiments with
>PCEP (sometimes
nough
>> > codepoints set aside for multiple parallel experimentations at a given
>> > time, and not to give
>> up a
>> > big chunk out for experimentation that it hinders IANA allocation.
>> >
>> > We currently have 9 messages set by IANA, some 4 ne
Support as co-author
Cheers,
Jeff
On 8/12/16, 02:43, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote:
Hi all,
During the joint TEAS-MPLS-PCE Yang session in Berlin, we had a clear
consensus in the room on the interest for the aforementioned I-D. We now
need to see if the mailing list confirms this
Hi,
This is a very much needed addition with variety of use cases, support as
co-author.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 08:04, Julien Meuric wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Though it is a -00, draft-dhody-pce-association-policy already has a long
> history: thanks to the authors for the common
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 9:24 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwi...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-st
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:45 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org
Subject: Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-pce-association-
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of
Date: Monday, April 10, 2017 at 09:10
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' , Jonathan Hardwick
,
Cc: ,
Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
Yes, support!
Also a co-author; and tired of reviewing PCE code
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of Sureshbr
Date: Monday, May 1, 2017 at 21:23
To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" , Jonathan Hardwick
, "pce@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-dhody-pce-applicability-a...@ietf.org"
, "pce-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-
Julien,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Cheers,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: 16 May 2017 08:55
To: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Final IPR Check for d
yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:25 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-h...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce
+1 Adrian.
complexity associated with GR (additional state/signaling/etc) wouldn’t be
justified, given existing means to provide synchronization.
Cheers,
Jeff
On 6/19/17, 08:21, "Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel" wrote:
Hi Sasha,
> However, our primary interest is the control pl
Thanks Dan and welcome Dhruv!
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:23 wrote:
> Thank you Dhruv!
>
>
>
> BR, Dan.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
> *Sent:* 22 June 2017 12:22
> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> *Cc:* pce-cha...@ietf.org; Daniel King ; Dhruv Dhody <
> dhruv.i..
Hi,
We crossed this bridge quite some time ago, so let’s just admit it ☺
1. Let’s be clear - we are not trying to define a new “holy SDN protocol ala
OF”, in most T-SDN ecosystems PCEP has been used as one of SBI’s since the
beginning.
2. PCEP creates state that is ephemeral, not a conf
We all know – every protocol has its strong and less strong sides, however the
properties required for a distributed device2device communication are quite
different from device2controller environment and should be evaluated as such.
There’s a long list of pros and cons for either environments (o
LS distribution has a completely different set of characteristics, compared to
TED distribution, calling all of that PCEP-LS is incorrect.
Back to my mike comments – while TED distribution could be done with PCEP, LS
would be rather problematic.
Those of us who built first BGP-LS implementat
++1
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of Cyril Margaria
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 12:25
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane DTF/DERX
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
+1,
PCEP is rather efficient at dealing with paths an
JP,
It has been a pleasure to working with you all these years!
Good luck!
Cheers,
Jeff
From: Pce on behalf of "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)"
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 07:30
To: "pce@ietf.org" , Julien Meuric ,
Jonathan Hardwick , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A"
, Adrian Farrel , "d.k...@
As co-author - yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 00:32, Julien Meuric wrote:
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Considering the concerns discussed on the list after the 1st WG Last
> Call, especially about the backward compatibility of the additional TLV
> (please see Jon's change list), this
Julien,
I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing.
Thanks,
Jeff
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 06:11 Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
wrote:
> I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Hardwick [mail
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
On 2/1/18, 09:10, "Pce on behalf of Julien Meuric" wrote:
Hi all,
This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please review and share your
feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday Febru
I’d “carefully” support the adoption, while functionality is needed, and having
complete set in a single protocol has its advantages (and complexity
associated), we already have one “kitchen sink” protocol, that has however been
designed to support 100M of entries and deal with bursty data, PCEP
ifferent way to instruct its devices after a
> PCinitiate has completed successfully.
>
> A Deployment Considerations section sounds just the thing. Maybe we will lean
> on you for text after adoption :-)
>
> A
>
>
> From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Yes/support
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 04:10 Jonathan Hardwick <
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote:
> Dear PCE WG
>
>
>
> This is the start of a two week poll on making
> draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05 a PCE working group
> document.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/d
Hi,
Please see inline (MSD section).
Hope this clarifies, thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
[jeff] both IGP drafts have identical description of the BMI-MSD:
“Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS labels a
node is capable of imposing, including all service/tra
: PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing
Authors : Siva Sivabalan
Clarence Filsfils
Jeff Tantsura
Wim Henderickx
Jon Hardwick
Filename: draf
Hi co-authors,
Few comments:
SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV should be changed (MSD handling) to be aligned with
section 3 of draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03
Could you please elaborate on use of Function Codes at the head-end?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
___
Dear PCE,
Following our presentation in Bangkok,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-23-binding-segment-00.pdf
The authors would like to ask the WG the following:
(1) Do we link the Binding SID to the PCEP SR capability? Currently we
can assign BSID for RSVP-TE LS
Hi John/Ben,
Happy New Year!
Both OSPF and IS-IS MSD documents have been published.
Wrt PCE - they merely state that if there’s no PCEP session between nodes
advertising and receiving this information, the receiving node has no other
means to learn the MSD of the advertising node, since it is loc
Hi Julien,
Happy New Year to you too.
There’s a slight difference between limitless (e.g. unlimited) and limit
has not been been imposed (not configured/unknown/etc).
I think “limitless” doesn’t convey the exact meaning. In simple terms - if
L=1, don’t use MSD as a constraint in the path computat
icate that it does not impose
> any limit on the MSD.
>
> Although it might be the opposite of what you'd expect, I think the
> definition is nevertheless clear as it is written.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Julien Meuric
> Sent: Mond
John,
Thanks for your great contribution!
Dhruv - welcome!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jan 28, 2019, at 08:13, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
>
> Hi PCEers,
>
> As announced at IETF103, Jon Hardwick has requested to step down as PCE
> Co-Chair. We thank him for his many years of service and wish him all
draft is ready for wg adoption and would like to request the
chairs to start the adoption call.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 10:19 AM
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Fwd: PCE-BSID Que
I support the adoption and willing to work on it.
The Function Code section is not well specified and should refer to
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming that has requested new IANA
sub-registry "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors”.
In general it is unclear why do we need them and what does “mai
Adrian,
I support the publication.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Feb 25, 2019, 4:54 AM -0800, Adrian Farrel , wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The WG last call completed without any dissent, but with only a few comments
> of support.
>
> There were some issues raised (including from Dan and me).
>
> Authors:
> Please post a r
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 1:35 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian, WG,
>
> We have posted a new version -09 that addresses WG LC comments (from Adrian
> and Dan).
>
> I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/
> Diff: https://www.ietf.org
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 20:26, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04. The WG LC will run for 2 weeks, till
> 19th June 2019.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-contr
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 06:00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> draft-leedhody-pce-vn
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Mike,
Thanks for the consideration.
That was exactly my point, having a number of different drafts that are short,
concise and focused on a particular problem has always been my preference.
The use cases are different, while they don’t conflict they are also don’t
“require” each other. It is per
As co-author support adoption.
Preemptively - not aware of any IPR
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 20, 2019, 1:45 PM -0400, Dhruv Dhody , wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state
Hi Hari,
I’m not aware of any IPR applicable.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Aug 20, 2019, at 23:40, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan wrote:
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> In preparation for Working Group last call on this draft, I'd like all
> authors and contributors to confirm on the list that they are in compliance
>
Thanks Adrian!
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 11, 2019, 1:14 PM -0700, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A , wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we noted earlier, Adrian stepped in to help us with the PCE document queue
> and help bring Dhruv on as a new chair. He has done a fantastic job and Dhruv
> and Julien are now ready to go forwar
I support the adoption.
Will work with the authors on some pieces that need to be clarified.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 25, 2019, 9:21 AM -0700, julien.meu...@orange.com, wrote:
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> In our adoption poll queue, draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment has been there
> for a little while, after it was dis
+1
Regards,
Jeff
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 09:53, Jonathan Hardwick
> wrote:
>
> I support publication.
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>
>
63 matches
Mail list logo