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

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 80AAD3A104D for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:05:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8IK5eLD-Cei for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5003A104A for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 08:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 11JG4wfW031763; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:04:58 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D0622042; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:04:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D50822032; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:04:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (81-174-207-249.bbplus.pte-ag2.dyn.plus.net [81.174.207.249] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 11JG4vGR002142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: julien.meuric@orange.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
References: <CAP7zK5YxLUw_TvG-EBQXSfMcYUaeck+FZ=8o9+fbxJW=v59teA@mail.gmail.com> <06a301d7060e$bf285800$3d790800$@olddog.co.uk> <5573_1613745470_602FCD3E_5573_9_9_b51a0a8c-14f7-679a-0b7b-63e325828785@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <5573_1613745470_602FCD3E_5573_9_9_b51a0a8c-14f7-679a-0b7b-63e325828785@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:04:56 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <084b01d706d8$f82f7000$e88e5000$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIAdROQF0GBhi2g+pZtFSO0/U56OgJvTu8mAillwnKp5/0AoA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.207.249
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25942.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.146-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--29.146-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25942.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--29.145600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 1ZHks2aQIkjxIbpQ8BhdbMLRNemq17EikYC3rjkUXRIvfU/riSJXkQft OEm5Z3+gEAAj7wEwQafLe5Vb5ji0CzjLevnI5VPmCuDAUX+yO6YGchEhVwJY3wbYcy9YQl6eDUa dX8VcWfCaaBYwlL5lPnVyBEksQF0cnI0XI2bmVlkwjFu8zcBWiFFH/t3Gql8CevFaYkHe0BiOPq a3WX8UZrZe4rK/DFnebii8qX3sOvFB/0d6u+crHCbYLZ9HZ74HJQSryPTViF/k1kyQDpEj8IP+Y Da/Dhu9d4L0wepHxWTk8lmhgg+XgDj7+2rbSDLFnVTWWiNp+v9U8FDDfs3h4Gl2XMciNrUDDMo0 XQZly2hGaBVkXdy1WnXi4SWjOmvI+CpqtTA1+F8rCLswi3NpjXAbV1eRKDmgyzeZ0EF2JhKF/DB rpeo+OQgRt8hXSDykMK7alOhOrhWOJJOrNni1Kijtvm0vFhmtxIdxQKTk+jStYjW9XGZ0vE2gDB BR+dScQIndpKdk4fBP1GUW7ygvLWq+9BZJsqVkwTQdkTBfjnzY3zRC9wXsuNnvJ+pnY17DISiZa O1t9RFEoAtBTsaC/9EZf9pHN8rZGZz9JOZkDC0+SjKwBmBxLxBliFt9TmCGRy6sAa90Jf6nRqZU 3cwvjoDA+AzUmt3VPKXNkz5rBJiPoKA5sb9EfX2PoiXxUAcXlwT0XposETWjGnD5pl5dR6PFjJE Fr+olSlnU38LCY8tix43hpI4fVys3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO2FR9Hau8GO7gP90fJP9eHt
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/CK-hhK-4X2TKpapvFuSd-3wPUcs>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:05:06 -0000

Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien.

Makes this work more pressing.

Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents and goes to the IESG.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: julien.meuric@orange.com <julien.meuric@orange.com> 
Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for your feedback.

If evidence is needed, how about binding label?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2
Note it's also reused in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2

Have a nice week-end,

Julien


On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time.
>
> I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone
> needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably
> possible.
>
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>
> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
> you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
> the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 15th Feb.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.