Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

2020-06-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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 /

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-association-policy

2020-09-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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@

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-association-policy

2020-09-12 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

2021-01-08 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] [PCE]:New Version Notification for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt

2021-02-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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.

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

2021-02-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07

2021-03-19 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-05

2021-04-14 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional

2021-09-21 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] IPR Poll on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang

2022-09-30 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG Document?

2014-03-04 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-questions-04

2014-04-09 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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-

Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt

2014-07-16 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Adopting of draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt as PCE WG Document

2014-09-14 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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.

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-sivabalan-pce-lsp-setup-type-02.txt as a PCE WG Document

2014-09-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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 ? >

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02 and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-01

2014-12-01 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01

2015-03-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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,

Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01

2015-03-26 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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>&

Re: [Pce] Poll on Adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03

2015-11-03 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

2016-02-11 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP registry

2016-06-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

2016-06-15 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06

2016-08-17 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-association-policy

2016-11-24 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09

2017-01-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity

2017-01-11 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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-

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

2017-04-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhody-pce-applicability-actn-02

2017-05-01 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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-

Re: [Pce] Final IPR Check for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type

2017-05-17 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce

2017-06-04 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Is there any activity related to PCE graceful restart?

2017-06-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+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

Re: [Pce] PCE working group secretary

2017-06-22 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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..

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

2017-07-21 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

2017-07-24 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

2017-07-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?

2017-07-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
++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

Re: [Pce] Best Wishes for the future of PCE WG !

2017-08-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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...@

Re: [Pce] Second WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type

2017-11-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing

2018-01-16 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group

2018-02-01 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

2018-02-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-03

2018-02-21 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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]

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-05

2018-03-27 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label

2018-07-05 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12.txt

2018-07-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
: PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing Authors : Siva Sivabalan Clarence Filsfils Jeff Tantsura Wim Henderickx Jon Hardwick Filename: draf

[Pce] Mail regarding draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6

2018-07-18 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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 ___

[Pce] Fwd: PCE-BSID Question to the List

2018-11-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

2019-01-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

2019-01-06 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

2019-01-10 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Replacing Jon as PCE Co-Chair

2019-01-28 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] changes in draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

2019-02-05 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption Call for draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6

2019-02-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn

2019-02-25 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn

2019-03-07 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04

2019-06-04 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] PCE WG Adoption poll for draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association

2019-07-14 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths

2019-07-26 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

2019-08-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] IPR poll on draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

2019-08-20 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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 >

Re: [Pce] Adrian stepping down as PCE co-chair

2019-09-11 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment?

2019-10-09 Thread Jeff Tantsura
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

Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

2019-11-09 Thread Jeff Tantsura
+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 > >