Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10
Robert Varga <robert.varga@pantheon.sk> Wed, 26 June 2013 18:57 UTC
Return-Path: <robert.varga@pantheon.sk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7110121F9FC8 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7baAJhZMW3b for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk (amalka.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FF021F9385 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C18208AC for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:25 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk
Authentication-Results: amalka.pantheon.sk (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pantheon.sk
Received: from amalka.pantheon.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (amalka.pantheon.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTzXWKdlBQpl for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (cipisek.pantheon.sk [81.89.59.176]) by amalka.pantheon.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B58FB0CC for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 6k8PLRb1O4JM for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37779FC0ED for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.1 cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local 37779FC0ED
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pantheon.sk; s=D7204E10-2735-11E2-9595-0BDFE9028503; t=1372273039; bh=XfbvlP3XCRkgjwcFZbpY38iMx4jJs/2R+VlV2S3QTBU=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=b4r2PUeohJoLGBVZr86vremDJQTmqU+SvJhEPF/chD3MvWEDCosY6n7VHoD2Mfzox XdDf9ap6IZWM1kUjSl84igj1C9r+c44xkhH0sUZEhZQDbI0pIz6KpxEwL0etS6eau/ 8OSb9M97FPouVEoRDetnqsXlcAKN4prr0FG/NeGo=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pantheon.sk
Received: from cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ouDsEs2l1yTF for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.16.0.226] (188-167-34-16.dynamic.chello.sk [188.167.34.16]) by cipisek.dmz.pantheon.local (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3A65FB0CC for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51CB3989.8070203@pantheon.sk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:57:13 +0200
From: Robert Varga <robert.varga@pantheon.sk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pce@ietf.org
References: <7CFF94B047D8864CB6268315034E35DE2F5EEB83@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet>
In-Reply-To: <7CFF94B047D8864CB6268315034E35DE2F5EEB83@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:57:38 -0000
On 06/26/2013 05:51 PM, Oscar González de Dios wrote: > Dear PCErs, Oscar, > First of all, I must say that standardizing a way to de-standardize a > protocol is weird. The document draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10 > defines a new object and a new TLV to carry proprietary information. Thus, > two implementations will never interwork properly if they use this I-D. Of > course, the object can be ignored, but also, the information of the object > is lost. And if the intention is to be used only internally by vendors, > why standardize it? You can add to your implementation whatever new object > or TLV you have in mind, you are not going to interop with anybody > anywayŠ. > > As nothing can be done about that (the ID was adopted by the WG long > time ago), let's focus on what can be done now to foster interoperabilityŠ I think it is better to keep the non-standard extensions contained than to have vendors randomly pick reserved numbers without letting anyone know about it. > Ramon, Cyril and Robert raised very good issues about grammars and > having several documents that do not cover all the objects in them. Given > that the ordering is STRICT, it is highly important to have a clear > grammar, with ZERO interpretation margin. > > My suggestion is that now, when most of the extensions to PCEP are > quite mature, we could have an ID covering the grammar of RFC 5440 + > mature stateless PCE extensions. This is something I had in mind long time > ago, as it would be the best way to facilitate the interoperability. We touched on this briefly during IETF85, I think. My recollection is that you wanted to create an informational I-D, which would provide guidance on how to combine the currently-defined drafts up to and including GPMLS. Is that accurate? If so, I agree this is a good idea, but I would like us to do more to prevent this situation from occurring in future. I think Ramon's proposal goes a long way towards that goal. If we were to also relax the strict ordering requirement for attribute objects, it would make defining new attributes/constraints more straightforward. On a related note: would the WG consider relaxing the allocation rules on a portion of the PCEP codepoint space? I think having an option to use first-come first-serve allocation for objects and TLVs could make implementers more open about their extensions. Thanks, Robert
- [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-const… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Ramon Casellas
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Oscar González de Dios
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Adrian Farrel